It was either on here or was linked to that other wiki. It was either Latin or Italian and had something to do with reason or intelligence. It was pretty short, only one sentence I believe. I know that I'm not being very helpful but I had it saved as a bookmark and my computer passed away. Was supposed to be a tattoo. Thank you.Slowcooked (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)slowcooked

@RoninMacbeth For all our flaws, you can atleast rest assured that the current board is actively pursuing the issues. Hey, I'm surprised too, but we are!Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I got my appointment at the psychiatrist office switched from November to next week. My mood swings have gotten very erratic, 3-5 day intervals between manic and depressed. Any suggestions till I can get to the psych office?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

If your problems suddenly become acute, make sure you seek help as acutely. Proper medication can make all the difference. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@RZ Oh, and if you find yourself forgetting: write yourself a PostIt (and place where you'll always see it) which reads "Remember: it's just the lack of meds". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been dealing with it since the medication stopped working.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I was actually considering enrollment at Liberty University online. No I am not a rabid fundie or a Christian. I figured that if I could understand their doctoral dissertations, it would be easy. But I changed my mind. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

When I first stumbled upon this project my first thought was "oh wow this is exactly my kind of thing". Writing witty articles about nutjobs for the advancement of science. Could there be anything better? Anyway, I'm curious if I find a topic here where I suddenly realize that I am the ignorant fool. --Mad physicist (talk)

Welcome to the Rationalwiki family Mad physicist! You will find plenty of stuff to do. Great website to be on. Interesting discussions and plenty of mocking nuts. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Any word when Walnut 2.0 is going to be released? I mean I was always aware of some flaws in the current version but this video made me aware again of the rather long list of issues that need to be fixed! --Mad physicist (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Makes it sound like modern society is a mistake and that man should return to the "state of nature". Machina (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mad_Physicist Indeed! Check out this quote as well; it's one of my favorites.

I was with him until he started talking about how women were better engineers because they were more naturally more empathetic or emotionally intuitive. The whole point of this is that we shouldn't be hiring based purely on statistical averages and generalizations about the biological traits of men and women, we should be hiring based on what makes a better overall company. There's nothing wrong with coming out and saying that hiring more women, even if they're not as great as coding at the entry level as some of the guys, is helpful to the overall company for a myriad of reasons. If you staff your engineers with 90% white male coding wizards, you will have great code for your failing web services and products. There's also nothing wrong with hiring women to encourage more people get into STEM fields, which helps everyone in the long run. There's a recent tendency among liberal feminists to ignore this aspect and try to counter this "biological imperative" bullshit with more biological bullshit of their own. The fact that he was unwilling to delve into the gender issue doesn't help his case either. I'm also not sure about martyring him by firing him, just makes it certain he'll have a new opinion column on Breitbart. Hentropy (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Why does it "so need" debunking? Why would anything "so need" debunking? It smells of a prejudicial line of thinking, and IMO is irrational. Skepticism is a very good thing, and if you find a flaw in the argument, then by all means, point it out, but don't make any logical fallacies of your own along the way. ~~— Unsigned, by: 98.165.73.70 / talk

There are scientists who agree with the basic science in the "manifesto". Most of the ones who speak out are certainly conservatives. Some are not. Bring out the fainting couches. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The main thing to take away from this IMO is that you are ruled by the people who sign your paychecks rather than the people you vote for. This is of course the great flaw of pseudo-libertarianism. Also, that guy, and everybody in a similar situation, really needed to organize a union. And yes, it does suck that we have a 'Left' with persecutory instincts, who too frequently adopt the tone and shunning tactic of outraged piety, and which would prefer to wield power through human-resources bullshit than stick up for a fellow who got screwed by his boss. And why do we know the author's name but not the leaker's? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that needs debunking is the evo-psych garbage that seems to permeate whenever a question about women in any workplace is brought up. The rest of it is pretty inoffensive. The author of the manifesto even goes as far as suggesting people should be stigmatized less for stepping out of society's expectation of gender roles, although granted, mainly in the context of men. megalodon (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The emphasis obviously being on garbage, not on "evolutionary psychology" (since we're not Creationists). The guy who wrote that manifesto demonstrates quite well what 'folk' pseudo-EP looks like. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

According to some authorities ( kids with real PhD science diplomas), it reads like an engineer writing outside his area of expertise, not pseudo-science. Google can fire anyone for any reason at any time. Such is capitalism,..tsk... They really shouldn't lie about their reasons. It will bugger them.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

heh, heh, heh...Real Scientists already have defended the thesis. e.g., Dr. Peterson at Toronto U, who is no crank, though no doubt some would rather he were one. By the way, I am not supporting the thesis, others do. I don't agree with Google's head-up-its-own-ass approach.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Damore is an idiot for emailing this to his company, apparently it's just terrible that women are in the workplace yadda yadda yadda. Do we have an article on biological differences between men and women which analyzes gender superiority? I’d be interested in that because I hear crank parrots repeating this kind of stuff, because you know what’s sad? There’s millions of people like Damore that think discriminating against conservatives because of dumb ideas is just terrible.—♥127.0.0.1♥ (talk • stalk) 22:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

At first Damore does not say that the difference is only biological. He accepts biases as another one: "Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story." (if I interpret the quote correctly). (Just because the article sounds a bit like he would do.)

The article argues that Damore is confusing correlation with causation. But we know that were are some differences between males and females. And this differences correlate pretty good with the amount of people of each gender who work in a the tech or have higher positions. You can find some kind of this differences in all cultures and even in babies and apes so it can be assumed that they are partly biological. This means that differences in the amount of males and females in the job are indeed partly founded in biology. For this reason the article is also wrong then it says "Using Damore's logic, if a 'scientist' had taken measurements in the UK between 1939 and 1945, he may have concluded that women's exposure to prenatal testosterone made them predisposed, on average, to munitions manufacturing.". In this case there would be no correlation between the gender differences and the distribution in the jobs.

The article also says "The idea that your exposure to hormones as an embryo will somehow skew your entire career just isn't true. If our pre-natal hormones controlled our job prospects then women's work would not have changed much over time. In fact, it has changed dramatically." To say that Damore thinks that "pre-natal hormones controlled our job prospects" is a straw man. He has never said that the hormones are the only reason. (In the quote above he explicitly says the opposite. If I interpret the quote wrong (I'm not sure about it) one could argue that it is an implicit premise, but it would be quite absurd.) Of course the career is also determined from social factors. And of course the gender distribution has changed because the social factors have changed. But this is not a rebuttal for the fact that prenatal hormones also have an influence.

I couldn't find more arguments than this in the article.

If I see it right Jim Edwards is no expert or so in this domain. Maybe it's better to read texts from scientists who have a clue about the theme instead of some journalists: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/. (I know, I have already posted it on WIGO:Blogs. Also Quilette tends to right-wing so the scientists could been cherry picked or the ones who are more critical to the memo just felt more attracted to the magazine. But this does not change the fact that this four agree at least partly with the memo.) --Takesam (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that differences between typical male and female psychology lead to tech jobs being less attractive on the whole to women than to men, this does not invalidate the 'diversity' belief system as such. All it really does is to suggest that the ideal egalitarian utopia will be difficult to achieve, and that the results of diversity policies will not necessarily lead to the ideal egalitarian utopia in practice. This is hardly an excuse not to bother, especially since the diversity belief system is a morality, or at least an etiquette. We don't give up on enforcing laws against murder just because we realize that law cannot eliminate murder. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Damore does not reject diversity ("I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes."). Also he makes proposals to raise the amount of women by making the jobs more attractive to women (see section "Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap" of his memo).

But if the differences in jobs between males and females would be only biological (what Damore does not say) there is no reason to push more women into tech jobs (with qutoas or so). If you would do women who are less interested or less qualified than men would get the job which is unfair and inefficient. But you could maybe change the job to the advantage of women, as Damore proposes. There is the exception that more diverse teams could work better (I do not know the science to this). If there are biases countermeasures could be good. But I don't think the government should force the companies to do this but the companies should do this themselves. It is good for the company to fight biases so they will. Also there are differences in interest and qualification not due to biology but to the society. In this cases it may be a good idea to change the society but I don't think that this is a reason to push woman into the jobs. As already said than less interested or qualified women would get the job instead the more interested or better qualified men. --Takesam (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Great place which i check for 2 years now every now and then. I wonder how big the community is and if there is certain guideline or generally how it works. — Unsigned, by: 178.59.139.174 / talk / contribs

We used to have an IRC, but it got blown away. Here's our Forum. Here's our user list, to give you an idea of how large our community is. Here's our community standards, which provide some guidelines for RationalWiki users. Lastly, please read these instructions on how to properly sign your edits on talk pages and the Saloon Bar. Thank you for contributing to RationalWiki! CJ-Moki (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Use this page to monitor recent activity, the page you posted this on is much more active than the forums. Christopher (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The forum isn't used that much. It's more or less a zombie at this point.—♥127.0.0.1♥ (talk • stalk) 23:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I owned the freenet RationalWiki, once upon a time. Linus ran it until he went to college. C®ackeЯ 06:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

you can also check out the to do list to see new articles people want or other problems with the wiki if you feel the need to be productive for some reason but I'm echoing the others who said that the saloon is the most active place for communication. Vorarchivist (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This will be very familiar to US people. Comments are in italics (there're more, such as NWO BS that the Catholic Church wants to stablish) but those are the ones I can remember best):

Never mind how kind you're to other people, as long as you do not accept Jesus as your savior you're going to burn in Hell for all eternity (It seems also that, conversely you may be as evil as Stalin but as long as you repent in your deathbed you'll go to Heaven)

Jesus is the only who gives eternal salvation and life, not Buddha, Confucius, and whatever (don't know if Confucianism offers something as that, but never heard of it. Also maybe the ones who say that should check this list of gods. This especially goes for that woman who attempted to evangelize me and when I trolled her telling I had my religion condemned me to burn in Hell)

Microevolution (small changes caused by mutations) is right. Macroevolution (species popping up), not. Also Science should not study Creation (for the former see here. For the latter, knowing that the more Science progress the less space is left for a God as the one described in the Bible it's understood why. Alas, the Big Bang theory has a beauty that Genesis, as beautiful as it may be as a poetic work, lacks)

Catholicism is refurbished paganism and the Virgin Mary just a refurbished Queen of Heaven, who was venerated along Yahweh (true that some Saints were pagan gods, but keep ignoring that Saints and Mary are basically middlemen. Also, conveniently ignore that Asherah, the Queen of Heaven, was venerated along with Yahweh because she was her wife).

The degeneracy of the traditional family is a sign of Sodom and Gomorrah, that the End Times are close (yes, because gays and the like outnumber heterosexual people and will outlaw the traditional familyy. As for the End Times thing, 'nuff said)

The Devil is loose in the world. Everything bad happens because of him (Leaving aside the bad situation in which that fact leaves God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence they'd read their Bible's OT and see the way Satan acts there. The less is said about the conclusion of that the better)

On the first point, the whole "you can be an axe-murdering-child-rapist and still get into a heaven if you confess/get saved" is more of a Catholic thing. The evangelical version would be more like "you can be an axe-murdering-child-rapist, but if you get saved and dunk your head in water and let Jesus into your heart, it's impossible for you to be evil again unless you renounce Jesus." The whole concept is qualitative you could say, true Christians who have accepted Jesus won't be totally evil and you can't just absolve it all through a confessional once you've been saved. This might also help you understand Point 6, the "devil" not being a literal red guy hopping around and whispering in people's ears, his main job isn't even to directly cause evil, but to convince people to turn away from God (this website is the DEVIL I tell you!), which leads to evil acts. Everyone has to answer for their sins, so if you try to get saved on your deathbed, it's between you and god whether or not it's sincere or not, they don't guarantee anything the same way the Catholics kinda try to at times. On point two, chances are they cherry-pick those two because they're not actual gods or prophets, to avoid having to talk about Ganesha or any number of others gods. On Point 4, the idea that Catholicism is rebranded paganism is fairly well tied to Restorationism, which is where evangelicalism comes from, and really isn't without total merit, there's little doubt that certain Roman/Byzantine mythological ideas crept in there when they became all Jesus-crazy. Hentropy (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The evangelical version would be more like "you can be an axe-murdering-child-rapist, but if you get saved and dunk your head in water and let Jesus into your heart, it's impossible for you to be evil again unless you renounce Jesus."

Thank Jack Chick then for his tracts giving me a wrong idea. Still looks like BS.

the "devil" not being a literal red guy hopping around and whispering in people's ears, his main job isn't even to directly cause evil, but to convince people to turn away from God (this website is the DEVIL I tell you!), which leads to evil acts.

Not few of the times I've heard them talking about him, they complain about everything bad being caused by the Devil. The same issues about omni*** stil apply.

On point two, chances are they cherry-pick those two because they're not actual gods or prophets, to avoid having to talk about Ganesha or any number of others gods

I'd swear they included Muhammad once. Or maybe they do not simply know about Hinduism, just Greco-Roman ones who are for worshipping purposes pretty much forgotten.

the idea that Catholicism is rebranded paganism is fairly well tied to Restorationism, which is where evangelicalism comes from, and really isn't without total merit, there's little doubt that certain Roman/Byzantine mythological ideas crept in there when they became all Jesus-crazy.

Not just that -Halloween is the rebranded Celtic Samain, some hermitages located in places as mountains or close to rivers as well as churches are located over previous Pagan temples or worship places, and both those worshipped deities and the feasts about them were absorbed into Catholicism becoming invocations of Mary or saints...-. I find funny that other quote I heard was "abandon all that tradition for something new", when that "new" thing actually predates Catholicism "as is" and it's even debatable if it's really the "True Christianism™" practiced during Roman times. Panzerfaust (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Now this is one of my pet peeves. Truth is, we don't know a whole lot about Celtic Samhain except that it was the name of a month; in Irish it's November. There is simply zero evidence that 'Samhain' was the name of a deity, much less a god of death. Now the association of Halloween with the dead comes directly from Catholicism and their feasts of All Saints/All Souls Nov. 1 and 2; the Mexican Day of the Dead is unambiguously Catholic, and preserves Catholic traditions of visiting cemeteries and memento mori themes that once were common in Europe as well. Now there are many reasons why I'd never join the Roman Catholic Church - their leader thinks he needs an earthly kingdom, they are antidemocratic in structure, they revere bones and relics, and pray to the spirits of the dead and other beings who are not God. On the other hand, most of these beliefs are original to them, and only a tiny handful of them continue classical paganism in any direct way. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

And what about Thoth, Marduk, Freya, Baron Samedi, Valhalla, Gehenna...

Heaven is 'a very large place' - if you want to 'wander around endlessly praising the one you believe to be the one true God' you can do that, if you want to be in the gated area where 'all true Christians' go, that is entirely up to you - and the rest of us can go explore (and watch the Vikings-versus historical re-enactment societies events followed by feasting if we wish to so indulge).

Perhaps the 'Christian God Botherers' (well he does refrain from smiting their perceived villains etc) should be told that #their# description of heaven looks rather like other people's idea of hell (doing nothing but praise God, all the thieves, murderers, bounty hunters and psychopaths etc who converted at the last moment are really not people most of us wish to be associated with etc etc). 109.158.61.138 (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer to reincarnate in another species, even if it's a methane breather of a Godforsaken planet, and start a new life (just an Universe as ludicrously big as this one has a lot of possibilities, not to mention if there were others, ). Jokes apart, when I was talking about Samhain I was refering to the supposed Celtic feast of the same name. It's still celebrated the supposed traditional way, with bonfires, etc. at least on northernmost Spain and Ireland. As for the BoN comment, very much so. The Pascal's wager article and comments on the annotated bible mention that issue and the Salvation War series delineates it a bit more (it's not pretty) Panzerfaust (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably most people are willing to follow the doctrine of 'be as ethical as you can, as far as possible do good or at least be neutral, be courteous to those around you, and be courteous to your God in particular and other gods, deities and supernatural entities in general, follow your faith and respect those of others.'

The 'Grand and Eternal Union of Gods, Deities and Other Supernatural Entities' will provide appropriate heavens and other forms of afterlife for their various followers, including the equivalent of school detention that enables people to atone for their minor weaknesses, indiscretions and other wrongdoings', various 'pleasing places for the non-committed and atheists', and 'hell or hells for the really bad people.'

Heaven for a certain group of 'Save everybody else-ers' will involve going round the several hells trying to reform the people there. 86.191.20.233 (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This video explains that adding study after study to the mountain of research that already debunks the conspiracy of MMR vaccination causing autism might actually not help to convince parents who are afraid of the vaccination. On the contrary: In one study four interventions were attempted on parents who opposed vaccination:

Factual information about the non-existing link between vaccination and autism

Factual information about the risks of measles, mumps and rubella

Pictures of children suffering from these diseases

A heart-wrenching story of a child almost dying of measles.

Result: No increase in the parents' intend to vaccinate their children. And worse: There are even indications that the more you expose the cranks with information the less people are willing to vaccinate. It just doesn't work. Apparently the cranks are too deeply trapped in their beliefs to change their minds.

So these are the conclusions I draw from this:

We need to stop making more studies about MRR and autism. It's pointless.

Maybe we need to tell parents (and soon-be parents) of this crap before they hear about it the first time, google it, and then click on the wrong fucking links.

And I guess this can be generalized to all kinds of woo. People who live in their bubble since years can probably not be "rescued", be it the truthers, the climate change deniers or whatnot.

I guess all we can do is to improve the education of our children and raise them to be good skeptics. But we will still not reach the kids of those homeschooling cranks.

We need to explain to people that biases exist in everyone of us and that this is very normal. But if you know that your brain is biasing you all the time then you can start to become skeptic about what you think. I found this video really informative: The Science of Anti-Vaccination It explains how many different biases trap the anti-vaccination people in their views.

The issue: people are legally allowed to have and share dumb opinions. While controlling media and speech may sound like a good idea on paper, it won't be in reality. False intuitive beliefs are something humans are very good at, and it will take genetic engineering to fix this issue, which has issues of its own.—♥127.0.0.1♥ (talk • stalk) 00:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, having education that encourages intuitive thinking may be the best shot, actually.—♥127.0.0.1♥ (talk • stalk) 00:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not just intuitive but skeptical thinking. And the foundations of logic and philosophy. So that they understand their intuition can be anything between totally right and entirely wrong. —Mad physicist (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that people stop using reason when someone challenges something they care about. However there is some evidence that talking in depth about the subject can help combat prejudices which would help against discriminatory crank ideas and also people who have personal experiences with what they're talking about also helps with correcting wooish ideas. Vorarchivist (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting article. So when you are talking to a person face-to-face there is a chance to alter their views. But as the article said, you cannot push, you should not be judgmental. Instead, the successful strategy apparently is to ask the people where and when they were discriminated once. And I guess many people have something to say, and be it just a phase of bullying at high school. And then they maybe begin to relate their hard time in the past with what discriminated transgender people might feel. –Mad physicist (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I read about another great, almost miraculous, example for this approach: Daryl Davis is a black man in his 50s with a weird hobby which he pursues since years. He talks to members of the KKK. His opening words are something like "How can you hate me if you don't even know me?". Over the years he has befriended many people in the KKK and some of them left the KKK and left behind their racist prejudices. [Article in the LA times] [documentary film] [German-language article] –Mad physicist (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The report of a woman who grew up in the Westboro Baptist Church: she talked to many people on twitter in order to convince them of her views but over the time she started to question her views and in the end it was her who abandoned her hate. [youtube] So there really is a way. You need patience, talk to the people, listen to them, and don't judge them. Miracles can happen, apparently. –Mad physicist (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm also fairly new so I don't know who in this community knows something about China. But I'd say if you know something about "China uncensored", go ahead and draft an article! :-) Mad physicist (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently a bunch of white nationalist apologist are thinking that someone completely innocent perpetrated the attack[edit]

"It appears the researchers at /pol/ were wrong" We got some grade A journalism right here. Also, RW users are better than that.—♥127.0.0.1♥ (talk • stalk) 22:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup,but a lot of people are dumb enough to actually believe this. Also If "RW users are better than that." is for me I'm sorry I'm just floored It's pisses me off that people fall into A: That Venus flytrap B: Are trying to use this to deflect this off the far right (rather knowingly or not). Knightofjustice123 (talk)

Donald trump just gave a goddamn press conference where he equated general Lee to George Washington, blamed the "alt-left" for there being violence at a neo-nazi rally, and blamed counterprotestors for provoking the terrorist fuck who killed them. What the fuck is going on? (side note: no alt-right concern trolling in this thread, thanks) ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 20:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

on the plus side, if this isn't too crass, you've now got a moral justification for Nazi punching. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Alt-Left? I am just seeing a trump press conference on ABC World News Tonight[edit]

"Alt-left" is a smear made up by both liberals and the alt-right to smear social democrats, democratic socialists, and other more left wing factions of the democratic party as being far left commies associated with AntiFa.'Legionwhat do you want from me 08:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It was only a matter of time before the word "alt-left" was put into popular usage. Even a moron could do it, but it was probably a Bannon-wing contribution. It is a ying-yang thing. A linguistic compensation: a catch-all for left-wing moonbats, BLM fringe members, Nazi-punchers and the like. Traditional lefties in America do not riot.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

you really think all or even most of those deported in the 20s and 30s or those blacklisted in the 50s where communist sympathisers?you think striking miners murdered by professional strike breakers and the national guard where all communist sympathisers? hoover's FBI at one time saw everyone as 'Communist sympathisers' and treated them as such. look their treatment of MLK for example. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No. I don't. You are great at missing the point. Where did you get this? I wrote that most leftists were not communist sympathizers. There were millions of leftists, especially in the 1960s. The whole Civil Rights Movement was leftists. Hoover tried to slow it by accusing people of being Commie sympathizers. I remember it. That dog didn't hunt.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

except, in response to to my suggestion that the left has been persecuted to varying degree throughout much of the twentieth century, your reply was 'your thinking of communists'. my reply to that was to highlight more specific examples where 'they were communists' is at the very best is blatant exaggeration, if not out right bullshit. you then reply 'oh noes, i didnt say that' oblivious to the implications of your own statement, then reiterating the EXACT point i was making ie. that it wasnt merely communists shat on by the us state. further more, the original point to your initial statement in this thread shows your grasp of what constitutes the 'traditional' left, like your grasps of nazis, is too narrow, insufficiently broad, it might as well be fantasy. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC) 'too narrow, insufficiently broad' and at same time, vague and indistinct - quite a feat.i salute you AMassiveGay (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Really, im starting to see the merits of that fallacy bingo people here like play and just spouted 'no true scotsman'. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought "leftist" only referred to Marxists, and "liberals" refers to centrist style politics that is predominent in most Western countries? Then again, maybe I read too much r/ShitLiberalsSay and r/Communism. But it's just so tempting to let myself think those people are in control of the modern left( ? Non-right, I guess?) so one can issue a casus belli on all of them. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It really depends on where you are. While it might be that way in Europe in The US its common for people who fall to the right of social democrat to be called leftist.Vorarchivist (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

even centrists are referred in terms of centre left and centre right. in the uk at least, liberal seems to me a pretty fuzzy term AMassiveGay (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Here in Texas, you're either a god fearing, gay bashing, Ted Cruz level Republican or a filthy homo commie. They call those 'liberals'. when I tell people I'm more centrist, I get called a libtard or, my personal favorite, my morals are bad and I wasn't raised right(my own dad tells me this!) No joke, til I was about twelve or so, I thought 'liberal' was a serious insult. Trump has made it much worse. Now I have family members defending Nazis because "well, they're just showing their white pride!" Goddammit. Asaac Isimov (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've always had the idea that there could be an article of the week, but an article to cleanup and improve for that week. RationalWiki has a lot of articles and I think focusing on some non-brainstared articles can greatly increase the amount of brainstarred articles we have. We have a tendency to have articles with a stub template that haven't been edited for a year:

I'd love that to be real, especially since I work to cite pages and just see the amount needing citation rise so anything that would encourage working on current pages would be great. Vorarchivist (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Can 'the nuisance IPs' (as distinct from 'attempted wit' and 'enlighten my ignorance') have a 'You have new messages' generated for them that say 'Get a life (and a #proper# 'sense of humour' implant)'? Or a Trump-tweet style comment generator ('You are very sad') 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How would you suggest we distinguish between "nuisance IPs" and GF contributor IPs automatically? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ouch! I wonder if something similar will happen when Donald Trump and his cronies go on trial.Nerd271 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump will not go on trial. He will not be impeached. If he happens to resign, he will be fully pardoned before a hint of an inquest can start. The people who voted for him will never acknowledge responsibility for what they've done. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

im not entirely convinced trump has actually done anything, at least with respect to collusion with russia. I was thinking (not one of stronger skills) about this and I cant see why russia would even have to. They are perfectly capable to influence, hack, mess with the electoral process without his help and would have done so whether trump was or wasn't on board. They did not want hilary in the whitehouse is what they wanted and what they got. The fact trump is an incompetent clown and putin knows how play him like a fiddle is just a happy coincidence for them. i wouldnt put money on him not being as guilty as sin but theres been no smoking guns so far, and what we do know can be explained way with incompetence, political naivety, and the pig headed arrogance of someone whose not used to being told 'no', with the added extra of american electioneering done legally still seems pretty murky to me. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

that all said, we are talking about a country where an unsecured email server is considered treason, so who know AMassiveGay (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Trump has done something. He stopped supplying the Islamist rebel groups Tahrir al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam with weapons and funding, and instead started supporting socialist Kurdish groups (yes, you heard that right antifa). Despite close relations with the Saudis, he has conspicuously not given in to Saudi requests for military support in their invasion of Yemen. The only bad thing he's done was the travel ban on Shia countries, but that was a pro-Sunni deal handed down from Obama which Trump naively followed through with. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

i have no doubt he has done stuff, i am merely referring to getting in bed with the russians to rig the election AMassiveGay (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Going out like Nixon is a good option. We do not need any more drama. Nerd271 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Possible collusion with a foreign power (Russia) to interfere with the 2016 US Presidential Election is not the only thing he is under investigation for. Robert Mueller is also looking into his finances for any conflicts of interests. Nerd271 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

again, i am only referring to russian collusion - something that many folk appear to believe is a certainty AMassiveGay (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

So... Hypothetical. What if someone commits a crime so heinous that literally no one, or at least 12 Americans, can be found to be on a jury? Do we just have a summary execution? CorruptUser (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that depends on the perspective that you come from. Climate Change is a idea that has appeared from hard science, and decades of study. The Bible was written up by a few dozen people over thousands of years of war, conquest and fable. In a purely rational society, one would expect the Bible to be seen as a book of nonsense, and Climate Change to be universally accepted as fact, no questions asked. We do not live in a rational society. Sure, some may appear "rational" but the function of society, the essence of it is to NOT be rational. Society is designed to have social barriers, walls if you may. Someone who believes in the Bible 100% and looks at Climate Change can come up with mainly two conclusions- This information is false ("Fake News" as some would call it) or that the information is partly true, yes there are changes, but they are natural and will appear and disappear over time. Both of these conclusions are not rational. Why is this? Because of the main signifier in the Bible itself- God.
God appears to believers as the ultimate Big Other- one who is above all flawed human constructs. As such, The word of God is valued more (in the Bible) than humans- they are nearly always portrayed as weak and morally lost. The Christian who believes God's word over human thought is considered more authentic, and thus, less sinful. Therefore, The usual Christian subject, following their own logic, must appear as a Christian object to God by following the rules of Christian Rationality- Believe in the act of helping mankind and improving the Soul, but Trust in God as the ultimate Symbolic object outside the flawed human science- it may help your body, but not your soul. Therefore, the creationist subject usually gets the best of both worlds- the benefits of science, and the negation of logic caused by the God that appears as Other.
This may answer your question. Click Link Or Gulag 02:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you gotten wind of the whole brouhaha about the ethnic composition of Roman Britain?[edit]

Should we have an article on that? Or is there really nothing more to say than "we don't know, but probably quite diverse"? Evil Zionist (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably most people 'don't really care it was a long time ago and the Roman Empire tended to move soldiers away from where their relatives were so they would remain loyal to Caesar, and what about the Anglo-Saxon-Jutes-Vikings-Normans and Cheddar Gorge Man and a few others adding to the mix... and my parents were immigrants so it is irrelevant anyway.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

you might want to view this. its twitter spat and I know how you folk love yourselves some twitter spats. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

We have an article on that Taleb guy? Evil Zionist (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

we do. i know nowt about him i just recognised his name when i was about mary beard in the guardian. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"Race" as we know it was much less salient to the ancients. The cultural center of the Roman empire remained in the eastern Mediterranean. In that geography, people generally would have been aware that people tended to become darker the further south you'd go, but there was no real cutoff point or clear line of demarcation. It's only the experience of Western Europeans, cut off culturally from the original eastern center, that made 'race' the big deal it now is. And that's because they had to sail past 800 miles of sparsely inhabited desert full of hostile Muslims, and when they got past that they found a world of very dark people. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Disabling comments does not violate laws of free speech so long as it's not a government entity — Pensacola Christian College is an independent school so it doesn't apply.—♥127.0.0.1♥ (talk • stalk) 20:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe they just hate trolling, just like every other website, including this one. Funny I have to monkey with the URL to edit here and you're complaining about censorship...— Unsigned, by: 172.58.12.88 / talk / contribs

I was just speculating, you might be right, you might be wrong. I was just tossing an idea out there. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is bad reasoning. If you've got even the slightest experience with youtube comments, you've got zero reason to want the "meaningful free debate" they'd bring to a good video, much less a shitty one. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 16:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I was curious, that somehow wrong? Sorry to be curious. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Rationalzombie, there's nothing wrong with being curious, but people are trying to answer the question you have asked. PCC is an obvious target for trolling, and while some private YouTube channels are into interacting with the trolls, PCC has a business to run and prefers the Don't feed the trolls approach. Some people at this site could take a lesson from PCC in that regard. 204.86.170.3 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC) (Same person as 172, different network)

I see a few holes in their argument. For example, suppose Wikipedia says, "We have to remove this verifiable content about this notable person, because the subject of the article is threatening to hit us with a SLAPP suit, and we don't even want to take the risk that a court of law might consider the content defamatory." The editor might say, "My free speech has been infringed!" because Wikipedia is not acting based on what they want to do with their property, but rather based on what their legal department tells them they have to do with their property. Maybe in that scenario, Wikipedia thinks the subject of the article, rather than the editor, is being an asshole, but they're still going to side with the subject of the article because he's making legal threats.

The same goes for copyvios, CP, etc. The only reason Wikipedia still has the FBI seal and the Virgin Killer album cover on their site is that they decided they were willing to defend their free speech in court if necessary. But they could easily have decided, "Nah, it's not worth the risk" (especially since copyvios and CP can also be criminal matters). If websites are having to potentially put up money for legal fees to defend their free speech, is free speech still inviolate?

Morally, one might be tempted to say, "Who really cares about the property rights of website owners, especially if they're going around advocating infringing others' property rights?" For example, suppose the website of Smart Approaches to Marijuana gets hacked. I could say, "Well, they were campaigning against people's right to smoke a joint in their own house, so why should I care about their property rights?" It's like when Nazis say, "I have a right not to be punched in the face when I'm talking about why Jews should be sent to the ovens!" Ailurus (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Rationalwiki has been described as "Listing those who subtract from the sum of human knowledge."

And I think that, for just about anyone out there, that should be how it works; if the law is practically nothing more than a blunt weapon for the rich to use against those who don't think they have the resources to mount a decent defense (such as with Britain's legal definition of libel), then it falls a fair distance on the outright counterproductive side when it comes to reducing misinformation, but if it were simply "everything's fair game" then (setting aside the ever-increasingly transparently corrupt media monopolies for a moment,) the truth could be expected to win any war of attrition.

If only companies beyond a certain threshold (at which pretty much any of them can reasonably be expected to be able to defend themselves in court) were subject to laws regarding libel/copyright infringement/etc ...then the social and economic effects intended by those laws would still be 99% standing strong (as, after all, it is a targetting of the 1% who own 99% of financial power), whilst the chilling effect of bogus DMCA complaints could no longer carve a particular desired shape out of the wild world of Web 2.0.

This would, ideally, allow and encourage media giants reporting on a given subject to scoop the facts up off the top as they bubble up to the surface (and then serve it up to the public in their usual for-profit manner). Ideally. But many news outlets regularly break the law as is, anyway, just out of the sheer unlikeliness that anyone who actually has the resources to sue them would. ~ ❤️ 18:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that the comic is talking about how people say that their free speech is being violated when people choose not to associate them, as shown in the fourth panel. Vorarchivist (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Free speech is hardly coextensive with First Amendment law, as that tired cartoon suggests. I'm old enough to remember the 'Legion of Decency'. It was a Roman Catholic organization ostensibly organized to seek the suppression of 'indecent' films and entertainments. 'Indecency' in its estimation also included breathing a word of criticism of the Roman church. Its MO was to boycott not only offending theatres, but offending newspapers that advertised the shows, and threaten advertisers who ran ads in any offending publication. For a great while it had marked success; even though American anti-Catholicism was a fairly potent force until the Kennedy administration, you'd scarcely see a word of it breathed in print or in film. Local police and newspaper people were often aware of clerical pedophiles; the scandals never made the newspapers until the 1980s at the earliest. Now, according to the xkcd interpretation, the boycotts organized by the LoD were entirely within their rights as citizens and consumers, and free speech was not impacted at all. Which is the reason why I think that xkcd cartoon is stupid and clueless. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

So under your definition of free speech does choosing not to watch something can violate free speech? Is it only when people choose to not watch something in groups or when they publicly declare that they won't watch something? In the situation you presented I don't think that boycotting was immoral, what was immoral was doing it in order to prevent news of mass rape and getting laws passed to allow the states to censor films. (also I'm putting up the legion of decency as a suggested article on the to-do list)Vorarchivist (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

When people organize to threaten sponsors of content they find 'offensive', free speech is definitely violated IMO, even if the First Amendment isn't. Organizations advocating censorship by boycott are no less pernicious than those advocating censorship by law, and perhaps are more so; laws, after all, must be interpreted impartially and are subject to some checks and balances, while boycotts called for by pressure groups are subject to no such checks. Similarly, I'm appalled by the hypocrisy people who said they abhorred 'doxxing' in the context of Gamergate, but are entirely OK with it if the victim attended a white supremacist rally. If it's dirty fighting, it's equally dirty for everybody. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

So would a government outlawing (certain types of) boycott (movement) then be defending free speech, rather than attacking it? Evil Zionist (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Legally, it's complicated in the USA. Some boycotts may be illegal under 'refusal to deal' or unfair competition laws. Unions are specifically forbidden from 'secondary boycotts' against suppliers or customers of a boycotted business, under laws that forbid sympathy strikes. These were occasionally used against unions for labor dispute related boycotts, but unions don't even have the kind of clout any more where that's much of a worry. It's illegal, also, for a business to participate in the Arab boycott of Israel. Enforcing these laws is always going to be difficult, but they do affect free speech in complicated ways. It's another form of the old paradox of how to respect the free speech rights of people who want to abolish free speech for others. My original point is that that xkcd cartoon takes a very crabbed and myopic view of free speech, and sides too easily with the authoritarians who would deny free speech to people they disagree with. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I remember when that comic came out. It was during the whole scandal with that 80+ year old basketball owner whose (mixed-race) mistress caught him making racist statements behind closed doors. The question was whether the old fart should be punished for being a racist when he hadn't done racist things, and whether a person with reprehensible views that doesn't go out of their way to promote those views should still be punished. CorruptUser (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand, we're told that racism is "systemic", which seems to turn it into something like total depravity in Calvinist theology. It's an omnipresent, invisible force for evil that will catch up with you and catch you unawares despite your best efforts; for this is a battle no mortal can win. On the other hand, we're told that 'racists' are public pariahs who deserve to be hounded into selling their basketball team. I still don't feel terribly sorry for the guy, but he did have private conversations exposed. If doxxing is bad, so is this. Again, an offense against basic human decency excused because nothing's too terrible to do to a 'racist'. There is a problem here, even if fervor won't let you see it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem with most arguments of 'systemic anti-whatever-ism'-ism claims is that they often appear to be special pleading and when you argue that 'the system' is biased against your own particular groups as well you get slapped down and besides 'all these proponents do is complain rather than attempt to reshape public opinion/attempt to set up a system that is inclusive (and most people tend to find 'street-viewpoint-shouters' annoying besides).'

There is 'free speech', there is 'free speech and being courteous and considerate to those around you, while avoiding look-at-me offensiveness', there is 'occasionally expressing outlier views in private (and whether, and under what circumstances, this makes the speaker a hypocrite)', also 'forcing people to be mealy mouthed and spending more time in contemplating whether what they say will actually or theoretically offend anyone including Roko's Basilisk', 'making people think (negative thoughts about the 'intelligence', 'dumb viewpoints' and 'mental acuity' of the speaker) and there are 'vile rants'.

The point is - where is the boundary between 'being courteous'/'taking one's money, ears and votes elsewhere' and 'free speech'; 'taking action to cause change to something more acceptable' and 'causing disruption for no good reason apart from putting the perpetrator in the news'? Often the boundary differs for 'the person taking the action' and 'the person being acted upon.' 109.150.43.103 (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Smerdis

Whoa whoa WHOA. Holy shit, "pariah"? Don't you know that the Parayar are a proud and noble people, who were unfairly forced into the lowest caste in Sri Lanka? How would you like it if YOUR ethnicity was used as the go-to word to describe someone as the worst of the worst, hmm? "Oh there goes Smerdis, he's a bit of Brit around here".

Ok, obviously you know by now I'm not 100% serious about calling you racist, though the etymology of "Pariah" is true. The point is what YOU, NOW, consider to be acceptable speech will not necessarily be acceptable in the future. And when you are no longer up to date on the latest list of what is and is not acceptable to say, for example everything was "gay" and "retarded" just a decade ago yet you wouldn't hear that now, well, you get the idea.

I also just like bringing that up whenever someone uses the p-word in a topic about racism and such :P.

There could also be an appeal to force involved -- "either agree with me or you have to leave my property." If the purpose isn't actually to save yourself some time (maybe you had nothing better to do than talk to them), but rather just to pressure them into acting like they agree with you, then it starts to make it seem like maybe you are the one with the weak argument, if a threat or dissociation is all you can resort to.

The way I decide whether I'm going to continue arguing with someone is, I consider, "Am I learning anything from this argument?" There are some Nazis who just say go on and on about how much they hate Jews, blacks, etc. There are others who will actually start arguing based on facts. E.g. I was telling a Nazi, "the Gleiwitz incident, even if it had been carried out by Poland, shouldn't have merited completely taking over Poland" and he said, "Here's a big issue with Gleiwitz. Much of what is known about the Gleiwitz incident comes from the affidavit of SS-Sturmbannführer Alfred Naujocks at the Nuremberg Trials. While on one hand, I can say, 'alright, this might be so,' on the other hand it's the Nuremberg trials. In a normal trial I think that the prosecution tries to get as much corroborating evidence as possible. They try to prove each of their points in several different ways so that it's inconceivable to the jury that their narrative is flawed. This looks like a lot of boring redundancy to the jury, but that's why it's done. So basing the entirety of our knowledge of a politically-charged and infamous event perpetrated by a defeated enemy on the affidavit (not even testimony, just an affidavit???) of one person is pretty weak sauce. It destroys the credibility of everything we think we know. So I'm not going to deny the event right out, but that's going to be filed under 'unlikely.'"

That's actually a valid argument (whether it's sound is another story). If they're going to argue like that rather than saying, "That's just a story spread by the Jews; they're such liars" then maybe it's worth investing time in the conversation. Ailurus (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I read that Kim and Trump, two megalomaniacal dictators, are one-upping each other with thinly-veiled declarations of war. I mean, it isn't unusual for the reincarnate of Benito Mussolini to have a diplomatic dick-measuring contest with other nations, but is Trump insane enough to fire at North Korea? Kim Jong Un, aka "Fat Bastard" from Austin Powers, for his part, hasn't helped either. North Korea is offering contradictory statements at every turn, at one point stating that "they will only use their nuclear arsenal if a foreign power attacks us first", and then at another point stating that they'll launch a preemptive strike towards the US. I also don't know the legitimacy of the site I linked to, it could be a tabloid for all I know.--Palaeonictis (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I had never come across them before, so I wasn't sure if I should take it at face value or not.--Palaeonictis (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Really the whole media has been rather irresponsible with this. NK is still missing critical parts of a workable nuclear ICBM that could hit Guam or anywhere else. They won't have it until at least next year. All of this escalation is likely a strategy by us to raise the stakes to force China to do something about the situation. They like the status quo enough that they want to preserve it, but the US is trying to force them to choose between Kim Jong Un or war. If it does end up working out the way he wants it to, with China stepping in to force NK to stand down and halt its nuclear program, then Trump will be hailed as some kind of military genius by the right. If it doesn't work out the way he wants... well needless to say, it would not be good for anyone. Hentropy (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No, but I forsee Trump causing the death of millions of Koreans and hundreds to thousands of Americans with an unnecessary war to show "strength". Fascists gonna fasc. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 17:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

They've fully adopted the fascist chic where their enemies are both lessor and pathetic and a threat to existence of the chosen class at the same time. Trump is both an incompetent childish cheeto joke and a "megalomaniacal dictator" who earns comparisons to Mussolini for his ideological fortitude and political prowess. Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You are a goddamn idiot, you fuckstick. Of course he's both a fucking incompetent moron(look at him) and extremely powerful(he's the president of the united states, that entails a shitton of power). This is not ur-fascism but incredibly obvious. He'll start a war, he may or may not use nuclear weapons, which he's shown an infantile obsession with, but millions will die. Again: fuck you. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 18:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You're making me hope he does, just to see China churn the West a bit. Would be satisfying on many levels :D Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure. And after that, maybe Russia or China can churn Turkey a bit. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No. WW3 is not even likely. 1) The US would not use nuclear weapons in NK because Seoul and US troops would be affected by the nuclear blast. 2) even though Trump is a dumb fuck, he has respectable military advisers, and the Secretary of Defense knows such an order would be illegal and criminal, and would certainly prevent it rather than go to prison for war crimes. Trump has no enforcement police, when the military tells him to fuck off as they most surely would. 3) At this point the only thing the NK missiles can hit for certain is the Pacific Ocean. It is likely the miniaturization claim is false. Also, NK missiles do not afford re-entry technology so they are useless as ballistic weapons. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You're being a bit optimistic. "Mad Dog" Mattis is a war hawk, though he's at least presumably saner than Trump. Also, bombing North Korea does not automatically mean WW3. Bongolian (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bongolian Yes, I am. Leave one word out of the Serenity Prayer, that's me. Some people might be seriously upset about the situation. They shouldn't be.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Pity 'they' can't set up a 'Big Brother TV series house' and put all the nuisance-leaders in it. 86.191.88.188 (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Trump and Kim face off for 18 holes of golf. It seems Kim is pretty good but Trump has gotten a lot of practice lately. Leuders (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Palaeonictis I am still nervous about N.Korea just as much as you are, but I cannot let it effect my own personal life. I have many other things to worry about such as student loans, vacations, my writings and my planned novel. So what I am saying is that you should stay as rational as possible. Also I would avoid reading the Mirror as they are a known tabloid newspaper, read a better newspaper or magazine such as the Guardian or the New Yorker. S.H. DeLong (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a game in whose setting -a world-spanning empire a la Roman one- when two countries went to war they practiced what basically was a controlled one, with very strict rules (no damage to civilians, etc) and arbiters of said empire that governed the world ensuring said rules were followed. Pity that's impossible in the real world. As that world leaders solved that kind of issues among themselves in a boxing ring and the like, as much is more than likely Kim would curb-stomp Trump. Panzerfaust (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello there. I am new here, but I saw your article on Zionism and I just wanted to ask, whether you consider Zionism evil? Evil Zionist (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I personally consider Zionism to be ethnic nationalism and therefore reprehensible, but I'm very aware my opinion isn't dominant on this site.'Legionwhat do you want from me 20:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

In short, no. Having already suffered through our own Israeli-Palestinian disputes on this wiki, I don't think most of us want to see it again. If you make factual corrections or possibly additions to our existing web pages on Israel and Palestine, that's probably fine, but we're not happy with polemics on these pages, as ultimately it's a big energy drain for us. Bongolian (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Zionism is "nationalism" only insofar as the belief that "nation-state x should exist" is "nationalism". That is, after all, the definition of modern Zionism most people would agree on - the belief that a Jewish state should exist. I.e. the belief that Israel should exist. Evil Zionist (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Asserting that the Jews have the "right" to own Israel and environs is indeed nationalist- not fundamentally different from saying that America should be a Christian nation. It's ethnic nationalism, and any state that embraces ethnic nationalism as its foundation is hard for me to support. My sympathy for the Jewish diaspora across time does not override displacing people from their ancestral homeland. Pluralism and multicultralism leads to progress and peace, irredentism and ethnic nationalism lead only to conflict and war, which is more important than whether I think it is "evil" or "good" in an abstract sense. Hentropy (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I never heard of Zionism until some user started trolling on Zionism article talkpages.—♥127.0.0.1♥ (talk • stalk) 23:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the two-state solution on 1967 borders, and with the State of Palestine as a federation. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well the 1967 borders have their upsides and their downsides. One downside is that - unless you propose to move a lot of people by force - it would leave a bunch of Arabs in the Jewish state and a bunch of Jews in the Arab state. This should not be a problem, but I fear it is a problem in the Middle East as it now stands. Another issue is that it would once more entice Israel into pre-emptive strikes because Israel in the 1967 borders is very narrow on its narrowest point and you don't want your territory cut in two in the opening shots of the war. Of course this would not be a problem if there is eternal peace and cordial relations between Israel and whoever sits on the other side, but if there were a way to guarantee that, the actual borders would be next to irrelevant. Evil Zionist (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not entirely sure what is meant by zionism. It appears to mean different things to different people. I used to believe that it just meant the creation of Jewish state and its defence. then i became aware that some folk see it as a kind of israeli imperialism, for want of a better word with its expansion via settlements and via war (in the not too distant past). i realise the second part of that could be considered as the being one and the same as the first part, but if you were to think that the creation and defence part does not reqiure any additional land, is it not possible to be a zionist and be for a two state solution? i am also now aware of folk who believe zionism is some kind of international jewish conspiracy, but those folk are generally pricks. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

We tend to talk about Zionism disconnected from time, but Zionism was originally cooked in late-19th/early-20th century politics, when it became popular for western powers (France and Britain mostly) to "solve" problems in places like the Balkans by splitting everyone up by ethnicity. They did this for geopolitical, not ideological reasons, so they could propose "reasonable" compromises to restrict the power of eastern powers such as Russia and Austria-Hungary. You could say these solutions staved off the smaller wars that permeated 19th century Europe, but set the stage for the huge ones in the 20th century. Zionism was quite a run-of-the-mill political solution to Jewish disapora in Europe, the issue is that just like Serbian nationalism or Arab nationalism, it is not an ideology which has produced results, and if they wish to improve they might have to evolve the same way many European countries have evolved since that age. Hentropy (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"is it not possible to be a zionist and be for a two state solution?"

Yes, just as it's possible to be Zionist and be for Jordan's existence. The various Zionist orgs never really agreed on just about anything beyond "There should be a safe have for Jews"; some of them didn't even agree on returning to Israel let alone claiming all of it. Some of the groups even wanted to keep all the local Arabs on the land, and didn't even care if they were a majority so long as it was always open to fleeing Jews, and even a (very) few notable Arabs supported that in the sense that their cousins could help them industrialize without being placed under the British yoke. But a bit of ethnic conflict and a few wars kind of made any peaceful solution more or less impossible. CorruptUser (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

We could actually revisit the I-P articles to improve their lackluster quality, since Mona, Avenger, Typhoon, and the other warriors seem to have left us. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with the gist of Hentropy's post regarding Zionism itself, I don't think the picture of ethno-nationalism as a Western/European great power expediency for redrawing Balkan borders. Those effects stemmed from the Balkan states themselves and contained an inner contradiction between a wish for a homogeneous ethno-nationalist state and territorial expansion, which ineluctably created more and more and/or larger and larger ethnic minorities within the state. Also, one important influence in Theodor Herzl becoming a "Jewish ethno-nationalist" (i.e. a Zionist) was the infamous Dreyfus trial, not Balkan affairs. Indeed, local state and ethno-nationalist aspirations on the Balkans were more likely to complicate and frustrate great power politics in the area than to serve as an aim for them. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on 'Zionism' per se. I understand why it seemed important to carve out a Jewish ethno-state in the aftermath of the Third Reich. I would have carved it out of formerly German territory like the world also did for Poland, rather than making it in Palestine; the Jews' claim to the area was quite stale. But it didn't happen that way, and Israel is probably still the only place in the region where it's possible to assemble a symphony orchestra. What I'm tired of are the endless wars of Israel, and their influence on my own country's politics. Thanks to that influence a quarter of the world hates us, and I don't see any benefits to us that even partly balance against that cost. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Part of what makes this complicated is the conflation of religion and nationality. Even hardcore French Nationalists wouldn't define the "French Nation" in religious terms. And indeed many (though by no means all) Zionists argue that you can be Atheist and Jewish at the same time. But some on the fringes and many outside observers seem to think that the "Jewish" in "Jewish state" is meant in the religious sense. Herzl at the very least did not and I doubt we should support a state that sees itself as a religiously Jewish state to the exclusion of all other religions. The current Jewish state however (if you exclude the West Bank for a second) has relatively equal rights for non-Jews as well and is not all that much less secular than most Western states. Evil Zionist (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You are right about religion and nationality- but in essence it has little to do with religion. Ethnicity is ultimately about identity, and if you're saying that this plot of land belongs principally to people of a certain identity by rights- it's an ethno-state, no different from any other state that has existed under the foundation that it belongs to German Christians, Arab Muslims, Burmese Buddhist, etc. I suppose my point is these sorts of countries simply do not produce desirable outcomes, and the best thing for the Jewish people attempting to live in that region is to abandon the flawed, pre-World War philosophies that led to World War in the first place, and embrace post-war ideas that countries should not be built on ethnic identities, but on principles of liberty and pluralism. There are plenty on Israel's left which agree with this notion, but as much as some Israeli nationalists like to claim that they are not necessarily religious, the only reason they are in power is because of the racist and sexist ultra-orthodox communities propping them up. Hentropy (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Which state is not based on an ethnic identity of some sort or has historically been based on that? Evil Zionist (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"Historically based" is not the same as currently based. Politics and borders of countries change all the time across history. That's largely my point- at one time ethno-nationalism was the norm, and Zionism was not out of the line compared to most European political stances, but then we had two world wars that killed over a hundred million people. Now, we denounce countries that try to base their current-day identity purely around an ethnicity. The Israeli right has clung to this old and poisonous ideology of ethnic nationalism not as a practical solution to the problem (we're still in a never-ending conflict in Israel/Palestine that shows no sign of resolution), but because many of them truly feel like Israel is *theirs* and every non-Jew who is there by their permission. Being tolerant of white western Christians who spend money in your country is not the same as being open, liberal, and secular. Hentropy (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that ethno-nationalism is still a very widespread idea/ideology, but what has declined is the more extreme racialist/chauvinist version (what I think you're getting at with the phrase about a country trying "base their current-day identity purely around an ethnicity").

What is particular about Israeli case is the almost total equation of ethnicity with religion. While religion has often played a central role in defining various ethno-nationalist projects, the perceived total overlap between ethnicity and religion is particularly strong in the Jewish/Israeli case. By contrast, most other religions have "multiple homelands/tribes" or create multi-religious ethnic-nationalist visions. For instance, while Prussian Protestantism was clearly in the driver's seat during "The German Revolution" and Catholics were viewed by this group with suspicion, it was never denied that you could be a German nationalist and a Catholic at the same time. Or you can look at the strong nationalist flows in the Nordic countries which all shared practically interchangeable Lutheran state churches. The closest, of imperfect parallel I can come up with on the spot is probably Japan and Shintoism, but then Japan also has very strong Buddhist traditions in its ethno-nationalism, making for a more complex, religious landscape.

The complicating factor in the case of Israel and Zionism is the dual label of "Jewish" denoting both ethnicity and religion which is assumed to be almost inseparable (a notion which, taken to its racialist extreme, disregards whether a "Jew" comes from a family which has long since converted to some other faith or has become atheist). The irony is that this anti Semitic bogeyman seems to have been basically embraced by that extreme chauvinist "religio-nationalist" right wing in today's Israel that you mention, Hentropy.

It is also quite historically ironic that Israel thus shares with Germany both a basically {wpl|jus sanguinis}} conception of citizenship and a law/right of return based on this conception. What Germany lacks is the unambiguous role of religion as a potentially uniting force in its ethno-nationalism. Another irony is that I seem to recall hearing/reading that Zionism was initially blasted by conservative, religious Jewish denominations as being a blasphemous attempt at usurping Yahweh's powers in defiance of His judgement (i.e. the recreation of a Jewish state was supposed to be Yahweh's prerogative, not man's). ScepticWombat (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Borders on the Balkans were mostly drawn on a religious base. A Catholic is almost always a Croat, a Muslim is a Bosniak and an Orthodox person is a Serb. So no, Israel is not the only country where religion and ethnicity are intertwined. Pakistan is another similar case. And current Israel has at the very least a large minority - probably a majority - that would like to get rid of the West Bank (or most of it) but fear the potential of a Hamas takeover just as happened in Gaza. After all, as long as Israel controls the West Bank, they can keep it from attacking Israel in a really dangerous way. Evil Zionist (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Israel created Hamas? Oh come the fuck on. It's not like there weren't a bunch of radical Islamists hell bent on killing Jews before Hamas came into being. And look, Israel did withdraw from Gaza. But what did it get them? If you were Israeli, would you advise withdrawing from the West Bank and let the chips fall where they may? Evil Zionist (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If I were Israeli, I'd advise an end to the brutal occupation of both the Gaza strip as well as the west bank, I'd advise an erasure of the material conditions that allow radical groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to exist, and most of all, I'd advise a secular government in which Palestinians have a true say in dictating the way they live their own lives.'Legionwhat do you want from me 22:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Israel has left the Gaza Strip. Did not do them much good. And I don't think hatred and the desire to murder people is always rational. The Nazis had no rational reasons to kill the Jews after all. Evil Zionist (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Some Nazis did. It's just that the rational reasons also happen to be inherently and unquestionably evil. For instance, many Nazis wished for great wealth. Many Jews in Germany had great wealth in one form or another. Thus, a rational Nazi would figure that exterminating Jews would yield them profit more easily than actually doing the hard work necessary to acquiring wealth without murder. Nazis tended to either be Anti-Semitic lunatics or psychopathic thieves. Or both. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Evil ZionistI don't think its a stretch to say that the material conditions in the Gaza strip, caused by Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip, has led to increased radicalization among the people living there, rational or not.'Legionwhat do you want from me 03:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@EZ: The equation between ethnicity and religion in the Balkans was basically how early nationalists tended to define the various Balkan ethnic groups (who had an identity that was, at the time religious, rather than ethnic), instead of the mainly linguistic dividing lines drawn in some of the other parts of Europe. This also appeared in the "population exchanges" between Greece and Turkey, where Greek speaking Muslims were repatriated to Turkey and Turkish speaking Orthodox Christians to Greece.

However, the difference is that in contrast to Israel/Judaism is that while religion was important to these "national(istic) projects", there were plenty of other Orthodox/Muslim/Catholic states. By contrast, the designation "Jew" tends to be understood as a fairly unambiguous statement of both ethnicity and religious affiliation. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If you were the government of Gaza and your first priority were an end to the blockade, how would you try to achieve that? Evil Zionist (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I repeat my question. If you were in charge of Gaza and wished the blockade to end, how would your policy to achieve that look like? What would you do? Evil Zionist (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I mean, you cannot necessarily lay the blame on one ideology out of dozens that exist with the government of Israel for the gradual creation of a security state for the protection one of half of the population and the systemic isolation, economic degradation, and excessive, disproportionate military action against the other half. But in a reductionist view, it's easy to say it's the one most responsible. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 19:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ikanreed, I think you're conflating the ideology (which predated the creation of the modern Israeli state by decades) with the enactment in the state of Israel. In theory, Zionism could have been enacted differently. Bongolian (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel like the preface I gave to my post adequately indicated that it was not a simple cause and effect. I respect your request for nuance, but I also feel I gave a reasonable amount, even specifically acknowledging one must take a reductionist view to blame zionism alone. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 17:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone here heard of the movie "Blackfish"? I looked on the internet and saw a lot of articles on how it was propaganda, but also a few on how it was right. I say we should get out the goats and take a look. The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat! 02:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've seen it myself, and it's definitely slanted, but it's admittedly well-made agitprop that doesn't dip into obvious, easily-discredited bullshit. It largely sticks to the facts, that orcas are intelligent apex predators that probably shouldn't be kept in captivity, and that working with them is a dangerous profession that definitely shouldn't be done by poorly-trained, overworked amusement park employees. (SeaWorld, despite being the film's main focus, actually comes off better than some of the other parks profiled in the film.) I wrote a review of this film for my movie-review blog, and the only real problem I had with it was that the Mondo Cane/When Animals Attack shockumentary approach it sometimes took, being all too eager to show killer whales beating the snot out of people, often clashed with the sober nature documentary feel of other parts of the film. It got the point across, and it did admittedly provide some cheap thrills, but I would've just stuck with the videos of orcas hunting in the wild (and maybe one video of an attack on a human) in order to show that they were powerful and dangerous. KevinR1990 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The above video almost made me wonder why the universe exists instead of nothing existing, and that I thought "who cares"? Does it really even matter? Seems like, to me, it's a dumb question to ask since what would you even do with the answer?

On a side note, the speaker seems to have a very shallow analysis of the topics he covers.Machina (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, he surely has done SOME research on the topic. You won't be able to properly use terms like "grand unification epoch" without any prior exposure to the topic. However, there are several misunderstandings, fallacies and premature conclusions in the video.

One overarching theme of the video is the conflation of "Why does the universe exist", i.e. "What is the causal relationship that led to the universe existing" with "Why does the universe exist", i.e. "What is the purpose of the universe". Let me first adress the former.

The short answer is: We don't know. As the author of the video correctly points out, we don't know what happens before the grand unification epoch. What he does not (sufficiently) point out is that there are several hypotheses, like an eternal cyclic universe, eternal inflation, the multiverse hypothesis and so on. Anyway, that's a question our best cosmologists have been wondering about for almost a century now and it won't be settled by a 9 minute video from a guy who read the wikipedia article about the big bang once.

Let's adress the purpose thing now. The short answer is: There probably is no purpose. The universe just exists. Asking for a purpose is a pretty religious question and one that seems to be connected to the human way of thinking. That doesn't mean that it can be applied to the universe though. The fact that universe happened to come into existence due to some as of yet unknown mechanism some 14 billion years ago and happened to evolve life which can ask such questions like "What's the purpose of the universe" on some rocky planet wobbling around an average star at the edge of one of its average galaxies does not mean that there's a particularly enlightening answer to the question.

Finally, the author also makes a layman's attempt to use quantum mechanics to solve one of the major unsolved mysteries in cosmology which is bound to end in disaster. He uses Schrödinger's Cat and the fact that a measurement can have an effect on the system to conclude that the universe itself must be conscious. That's not how any of this works (unless you interpret humans as part of the universe and therefore identify us as the conscius part of the universe, but that's not what the video is about). It would be more appropriate to say that interactions affect quantum systems, no matter if there's a conscious being using the interaction for a measurement or not. The argumentation already breaks down at this point because now all you need is a universe which allows certain types of interactions (which it does) and not one which is conscious (which it very likely isn't). --Imaginative username (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

'The cosmic serpent went through the void and said 'I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not"?' The Flying Spaghetti Monster replied. 'Shall we create sentient entities this time - I fancy some alphabet pasta.' 86.191.20.133 (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It is more fun than the alternatives/we have what results with 'following the instructions to construct (something completely different) every which way possible and still have a few parts left over.' (as to whether we are in 'the main construct' or 'the left-overs' I cannot tell you. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There was another bit he did on solipsism, but it really only scratched the base level of it. Doesn't address language or really anything else that pokes holes in it, and somehow he always manages to default to meditation in the end.Machina (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

One day we might find out why or if there is a purpose. The beauty of science right there. But if people listen to total quacks (i.e- Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson or Alex Jones), we will never find out the real answer to such a question. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This question can be viewed with fascination, indifference, or disdain. I admit I am fascinated by it, but I also admit to some disdain. To begin with, the Law of the Excluded Middle is standing near in the background of this question: either you have something, or you have nothing. But, in human experience this is almost never true, e.g., "either you have money or you have no money" is almost always false in the negative case. Usually one has some money, even if only a few cents. Thus we clearly have the middle in the case of universal existence: there is both being and non-being. We have our living friends and our dead ancestors to consider. There is the breakfast before us and there were all of the preceding breakfasts of our lives, gone now. Therefore, in order for a thing to not exist, it must first have existed, at least as a concept, implying some form of prior existence, e.g. one must first conceive of a unicorn before determining that there are none in existence. It seems to me, sometimes, that this question originates by way of religious exasperation that the damn thing hasn't ended yet.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The response is 42. Jokes apart, I think it has no purpose. The Universe just exists as, multiverse theories of any kind apart, could have instead existed, say, an empty one of a whole lot of dimensions. That kind of questions has a religious ring to them.Panzerfaust (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

these sorts of questions do not interest me in the slightest. the sciencey stuff is mostly beyond my comprehension, and any religious/philosophical answer does not inform or help with how i live my life. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Does censoring the Nazis make them more violent, or less violent?[edit]

I was thinking that if the Nazis are allowed to blow off some steam by going around saying, "Gas the kikes" maybe they feel less need to actually gas them. Also, theoretically, if you let them present all their arguments, then you have an opportunity to refute them. So is this a case where it's best to give them enough rope to hang themselves? If they're allowed to speak, and the public rejects their arguments, then they can't say the only reason why they don't have more support is that they were censored. Ailurus (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a nice idea but I think that if that worked they would have hung themselves 80 years ago incited of taking over Germany. Also they made a lot of loud statements back then too but they still escalated to actual genocide.Vorarchivist (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue that silence can do the opposite and make the people believe in a silent majority. I forget what the name is but there's a logical fallacy where people will assume that silence means that people must be agreeing with them which means that loud Nazis and quiet anti-Nazis might make it look like the Nazi's are more popular.

Unless you are suggesting actively shunning people who go to these rallies in order to invoke the spiral of silence.Vorarchivist (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

There's probably a middle path here that we're not finding. We are seeing open white supremacists today because this movement has been growing semi-underground, in formerly obscure internet echo chambers. On the other hand, the identitarian Left with its notions of collective guilt, is itself not guiltless for chasing people into these corners. The thing is that less-educated white workers are suffering. Their issues should be taken seriously. They would benefit greatly from a revival of social and economic democracy. But these people are mostly unable to contextualize the judgmental cant of identity leftism, and likely to become the targets of its pious outrage. We need to cultivate the ability to listen to them and address their concerns straightforwardly. Telling them they've got it made because they're white is specifically not helping. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The assumption here is often that violence stops Nazis. You seem to forget that the street violence between communists, anarchists, and Nazis was very frequent leading up to 1933. For their part the Nazis did use it to help sell their platform, so it backfired in that way, but much more importantly, it didn't work.Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I think Hitler once said there were only two ways to stop the Nazis once he started going. Either complete compassion to the point where the Nazis couldn't even make up any stories about how "oppressed" they were, or such overwhelming force that made people too scared to join.

Since it's too difficult to get everyone on board with "be nice to the Nazis 100% of the time", it's much easier to go with plan "beat the ever loving shit out of them". Feels better too. CorruptUser (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

My point is that having Nazis spout there shit openly and without anybody contradicting them will embolden them and move discourse to the right. Nazis getting counter-marches or even violence in their face wherever they appear will certainly produce a different outcome. Evil Zionist (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Having Nazis parading openly, while getting huge counterdemonstrations that make them impossible to ignore, strikes me as the worst of all possible outcomes. It gives their opinions publicity while confirming the impression that they are being persecuted for their beliefs, and motivates people to seek out the dark corners where they hide. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not what has empirically happened. In those places where there were no counter-manifestations, Nazi rallies got bigger. In those places where there were huge counter rallies, their rallies got smaller. If you look out the window and all you see is Nazis, how likely does that make you to utter your anti-Nazi views? If you look outside and all you see is anti-Nazis, how likely does that make you to utter your anti-Nazi views? Evil Zionist (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have lived in the Basque country for the past twenty years or so. When I started living here the terrorist group ETA was very active and killed people regularly. ETA itself was (partially) the outcome of the regime of the fascist dictator Franco.

ETA's goals of Basque independence (though not its methods) were supported by perhaps 50% of the population (number open to debate). As people felt they might be the subject of ETS's attentions if they spoke up, most anti-nationalists kept their mouths very tightly closed whenever the question of Basque nationalism came up. Nationalists, on the other hand, felt completely free to voice their opinions.

Now that ETA has almost completely disappeared as a force you hear a much wider range of opinions.

Well said. Anti-fascism is not a do-it-yourself project. In a reasonably well-regulated society, a violent group is viewed as intolerable and eventually punches itself out and the criminals are arrested.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Forums are cool but this one looks a bit sad, and to me it seems partially broken. All subforums start with "Extension:DynamicPageList (DPL), version 2.3.0 : Warning: Unknown parameter 'addnew' is ignored." and then goes on with listing the gazillion of existing parameters. And according to the overview all threads are created by %AUTHOR%.–Mad physicist (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The DPL stuff is unlikely to work again, unused. Christopher (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks, in that case we should get rid of it.–Mad physicist (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There have been useful discussions there in the past. There may still be some in the future. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That's fair -- I wondered if open-discussion essays could take the place of fora. (Thoughts?) Also: The forum namespace won't close -- people can still make new forum threads manually. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps keeping an archive of the forums would be a good idea. While the forums are, for all intents and purposes, abandoned, there are some interesting discussions in there. Alternatively, we could re-boot the forums (thinking a MyBB forum with bridge to the main site). CJ-Moki (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Last thing I want to do is divert people's time from rationalwiki, but if there are any active editors on wikipedia who have some knowledge about religion and violence and atheism in general, I'd recommend contributing to these articles. These articles have been gutted recently and needs more neutral and detached content (well sourced content and more actors in the debate). This is especially the case in: violence, criticism, demographics, irreligion and several other articles. Again, I don't want to divert attention, just advise users who use both wikis to take a look improve them for all readers. ShabiDOO 13:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. That's why I asked for "neutral and detached and well sourced" content (there is so little) and more people in the debate (there are almost no people). But yeah, it is a concern. ShabiDOO 13:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of forms of discrimination besides just racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. -- which ones should be banned?[edit]

An example might be personality type. Companies are totally free to discriminate based on the results of personality tests that the administer. They can say, "Sorry, no introverts allowed. We want bubbly, outgoing people on our sales force."

Or a court might say, "Because of your antisocial personality disorder, you need to be put away for a long time," the idea being that if you lack a conscience, you might be more inclined to harm other people. There are a lot of sociopaths, though, who say, "I don't really care about other people, but I still usually obey the law and try to help other people, just out of self-interest." (Presumably a sociopath with a month left to live wouldn't bother planting a tree for the next generation to enjoy, though.) There are also a lot of non-sociopaths who feel guilty about committing crimes but still commit them, because they have poor impulse control, or are in a desperate situation, etc.

My point being, if racism is bad because sweeping generalizations about a race can result in rejecting perfectly good people, the same could be said about a lot of other generalizations that people rely upon. Age is another factor in criminality; an older person will have a statistically lower chance of committing crimes, and courts are free to take age into account. Yet some young defendants will not recidivate, while some older defendants will.

The thing about race, though, is that it's not only used as a factor for judging how someone is likely to act, but it's also a sign of genetic closeness to oneself. All else equal, natural selection would tend to favor one's giving preference to those who are genetically close to oneself. Not only does this directly help propagate one's genes, but genetically close people might be more inclined to return favors given. For that reason, corporations have rules against nepotism, and judges recuse themselves in cases where family members are involved.

An interesting thing about capitalism, by the way, is that while producers can't discriminate, often consumers can. A store owner can get sued if he says, "I refuse to bake a cake for this gay couple." But a customer would be totally free to say, "I refuse to buy a cake from this gay baker." A big corporation has to give gay bakers equal employment opportunity, and either suffer the losses from consumers' discrimination, or shut down the bakery if it becomes unprofitable. If they do shut down the bakery, then the only bakeries left in that area will be small businesses, where the owner is also the baker, and then the only owners who would be left in business would be the non-gay ones. Therefore, the only companies safe from this kind of consumer discrimination are ones like car manufacturers that can't possibly conduct their business on a small scale like a baker could. Ailurus (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess that ageism is something that can be objected to. But sometimes it is wholly appropriate to discriminate on age. You probably don't want your airline pilot to be 80.

There will always be #some# discrimination - you will preferentially date X because they have the same taste in (list of interests), and you prefer (characteristics), over Y who has (fewer overlaps); and, 'all other things being reasonably equal' will the recruiter choose Z who shares their taste in music over W who does not?

And in the bakers example - what proportion of customers will say 'the bread offered by the corporation who recruits equally (but discriminates on 'cleanliness and speed of activity' over the reverse) is so much cheaper than the little baker (who operates a more overtly discriminatory policy) I will override my scruples and go to them'? Anna Livia (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bob - age is already covered by the equality act 2010, in the uk at least. age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation are all covered. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If we have an article on the US Dollar, should we have one on the €?[edit]

Should we? After all, there is a lot of crankery about people saying it "can't work" because Europe is "not a single country" and stuff like that. Evil Zionist (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable if you can create more than a stub. Bongolian (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I approve. I may talk of the disproportionated rounding that took place in some countries (up to 70%, of course up) despite advertising campaigns claiming that would not happen Panzerfaust (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If only for yet another talk page where we can have libertarian rants about how meaningless fiat currency is. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 21:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Should someone go ahead and create a stub or a draft in userspace? Evil Zionist (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The Mist (the movie specifically; never seen the TV show) is another good one. On the surface, it's about people trapped in a supermarket in Maine (it's a Stephen King adaptation, so of course it's set in Maine) as a mysterious fog sweeps over the landscape, bringing tons of deadly, tentacled monsters in its wake. The real villain, though, is Marcia Gay Harden's character, a Christian fundamentalist who radicalizes many of the trapped shoppers into a doomsday cult, such that the handful of people who still have their heads on their shoulders eventually decide that they stand a better chance of survival outside. Not only is it a terrifying horror movie on its own, it's also a great exploration of how fanaticism and extremism can spread in difficult times. KevinR1990 (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The Mist was a good movie. Reminded me of the book, "Lord of the Flies". Very similar in story structure. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I had both read "The Mist" and seen the movie, and I think they're pretty good. They're both pretty much the same up until their very different endings. I did not like sausage party though, a lot of the jokes seemed more crude than funny. If I have to recommend any movie, the first "God's Not Dead" is a riot. My friends and I always have a good chuckle playing up the stereotypes within the movie, exaggerating them to the highest capacity. The best part is (warning, spoilers you don't care about) when the atheist professor dies in a horrific car accident, and some moments later one of the men in the Christian band announces "This is a time to celebrate!" The second "God's Not Dead" I saw in theaters with my brother, and it is far less funny, would not recommend. Instead of having that "so-bad-it's-good" vibe going on, it's actually just mostly really boring. Most of the stupidity in the movie is chalked up to "none of this would actually happen in real life" moments, and the whole central idea of the plot line is one of those. Ironically it seems like the "God's Not Dead" team actually became more tolerant and peaceable to others during the creation of the second film, as I'm not entirely sure, but I think the teacher's attorney is implied to be non-religious, and is actually portrayed through the movie's lens as a good person (It might have also just been part of some hamfisted romance/conversion plot that they had to cut out for time or something, and that part specifically just happened to remain in, I don't know.) But I'm rambling, the first one really is a great "bad movie" to make fun of with friends.

I think I asked this before but never got an answer.
Is it anti intellectualism to believe some knowledge is more important than others? For example, most of us around here agree that particle accelerators are a worthy expense. But fewer would agree that someone getting a PhD in Interactive Media Studies (aka professor of video games) or another humanities type degree is anywhere near as noble as particle physics. But if the hard sciences can look down on the soft sciences and humanities, they too could claim that the hard sciences are money pits.
So, which knowledge is more important? StickySock (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not anti-intellectualism; it's reality. Having a degree in something that is difficult and enables one to accomplish something tangible is a lot more important than having a degree in religion. Bongolian (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

But difficult is not alone what makes a degree valuable for society. I could spend just as much effort on my dissertation on high fashion as someone doing research into discovering new species of beetles in the Amazon, yet one is clearly more "sciency". And as for "tangible", well, the guy discovering a new species of beetle hasn't really done anything "tangible" except expand human knowledge, but so has my fashion dissertation. So what's the demarcation for "valuable" knowledge versus "worthless knowledge"? If we are talking about financial return, it is unlikely that discovering new exo-planets will ever yield financial results in any of our lifetimes as it may be a quarter of a millenium before interstellar travel is even possible, while my fashion degree might be able to sell some new miniskirts, yet astronomy is probably a "better" use of a brilliant scientist than fashion. CorruptUser (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

But studying beetles (about 25% of all animal species are beetles[2]) and insects more generally, can indeed have important and tangible outcomes: 1) bioprospecting for natural chemicals potentially useful to humans 2) controlling agricultural pests (both insect as pest and as predator of pests) and 3) understanding biodiversity, and attempting to conserve the most highly biodiverse regions for future generations. As for the importance of discovering a new species, one can't really understand what one is studying without knowing the basic units. Bongolian (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Being "anti-stemlord" is not anti-intellectual at all. And the problem isn't, as you imply "snobbery" it's rejection of fields they don't appreciate replaced by simplistic assertions based on treating all science as granular and immutable as physics. Being a stemlord in the first place is anti-intellectualism. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 14:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a perennial myth about Philosophy graduates...as Bill Murray said ironically "There's a big buck in that raquet." Graduates of Philosophy usually take more time until they begin their full careers but within a decade of their graduation they are beginning an advanced career with a salary higher than average. The number one job they take are as functionaries (teachers, policy analysts, international relations and even officers in the police or military). Graduates are accepted into medical schools and MBA programs and are scouted by fortune 500 companies. That is not to mention new emerging fields of study and practical applications in which philosophers form an essential branch (bioethics, artificial intelligence, formal logic, human rights, forms of complex learning, secularism, humanism, open societies etc.). It's one thing to say "all these guys studied engineering and now they are building a train that will transport us faster". That's impressive and clearly helpful, "tangible" and valuable. But think of it like this "these guys studied Philosophy and now they are "Detective with the Chicago Police, Ambassador to Chile, EU economic policy adviser, Principal of a private school, Vic-President of a major corporation, editor of an influential magazine, a leader in the field of Bio-ethics, developing a system to learn languages faster, a professor teaching philosophy to a new generation of students". I don't think they are being snooty, they are just revealing their own biases and an incomplete picture of what graduates go on to accomplish. 92.177.175.253 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

When reading up on homeopathy and other bullshit pysdoscience stuff, I was directed to this wiki. I was very hesitant to use the site at first, since the word 'rational' in my mind has been tainted by so called 'rationals' and 'sceptics' on youtube. But I was very pleasently surprised, finding the pages to be well written, reserched, and level headed.
As a 'SJW beta cuck commie' or whatever, I found your articles on non binary gender and related SJW topics to be very respectful. As a nonbinary person on the internet, there arnt many places that are welcoming. Im not a fan of twitter, I use reddit but god it can get awful, facebook is bullshit, etc. So, or course, tumblr is my main thing. When I talk about being non binary, many 'internet people' respond with the classic 'attack helicopter' shit or 'oh are you (insert noun here) gender?', so to use a peer edited site like this and to read the words 'Use their preferred name and pronouns' means more to me than you know. Keep up the amazing work, and I hope to add to this site as well.— Unsigned, by: Vergak / talk / contribs

Don't care enough one way or the other. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Or can we make a favicon where the double square brackets are recognizable? Or is the maximum pixel size of favicons not enough for that? In that case I favor the proposed favicon over the current one.–Mad physicist (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to sorta share a story about the church I usually go to. I mostly go there because it provides my father emotional support as a slowly recovering Alcoholic, and because I grew up there. It's generally sane (The old pastor ripped "Expelled", the Creationist manifesto we all know and love, a new one when the Youth group decided to watch it), but ever since the pastor left, the transitional pastor gave a Sermon that.. was less than sensible. He recalled events where he was in Madagascar as a visionary, and saw people doing weird things, such as a man Streaking on the streets while barking, and a Woman who would slam her head on a log, both becoming "fine" after visiting the local Lutheran Church for an Exorcism.

I walked right out of it because stuff like that is usually where I draw the line, but my Grandfather (Who I live with because I can't afford an apartment and it helps me save money while I get through my first two years of College) got the genius idea that my Autism and anger issues weren't autism, or say, developed from my Dad's abuse when I was trapped there for 2 years. Nope, when i'm arguing with him i must be posessed! It's the demons in my head! I don't seem "Myself" during that time, and attributed my conspiracy phase I went through 2 years ago as such as well.

This really makes me not want to go there anymore, and I mostly tell you this story because I feel people don't realize how widespread (And dangerous) the belief in Exorcisms still is, even outside the African and non-Pentacostal churches in America. I'm worried I'd lose my medicine and everything if the pastor doesn't change soon, as this isn't the first story he told on this. That, and this pissed me off.--Spoony (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Something has to be done, staying in the environment will cause terrible damage. I get that you want to support your dad but to me, it is just not worth it. Maybe you should try convincing your dad to switch churches? I am not 100% sure how to respond but I have autism and other mental health issues. I learned to cut out toxic environments and relationships. I don't know the whole situation but I at least want to try and help. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I really believe that a better environment would be better for me, as to this day my inferiority complex and severe depression is only reinforced by my Grandfather telling me this stuff. I will talk to my father about it, but I worry he will continue to stay there due to nostalgia purposes (Our old pastor was a pleasure to talk to, and the church will not be the same without him.). While I want him to recover I still remember his abuse. I really cannot afford another environment for a couple years, but I'm also worried my father will slide back into alcoholism in the future. All I can do is sit and wait. Maybe the new Pastor won't be as crazy since the current one is transitional.--Spoony (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Exorcism can indeed be dangerous. I compiled a list of murders committed via "exorcism". Demonic possession is often used as a cover for attacking people who don't toe-the-line (or who have mental health issues) in exorcism-friendly religious groups. Bongolian (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I got a family member really into Emmanuel TV's bullshit. They had a video of a guy biting off a chicken and shit, claiming to be possessed.--Spoony (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Due to that I feel most Exorcism is more stageplay than murder, but it probably depends on the location--Spoony (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

My "father" was verbally abusive to me and my siblings. He downplayed any emotional issues I had and I suspect that he is a drug addict. I have not talked to him in several years as he ran away when I was 17 (I am 23 now). I am glad he is out of my life and I hear that he is being shipped from one nursing home to another. I take personal joy knowing he is suffering in the hell he has created for himself on Earth. I saw my Biological father roll over my cat's spine with his wheelchair after the stroke he had. I saw my cat slowly die because her spine was snapped in half. It was so horrible to see. It still haunts me to this day, I was 10 years old at the time. My biological father just laughed about it. I would not be shocked if many of my mental health issues were cause by It. That creature almost ran my brother down with the van we had. I know I am pouring out my emotions and it seems like I am downplaying Spoony's story but reading his story reminded me of mine in so many cruel ways. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Au contraire. Politics is the study of how the interests of different segments of the population interact, and religion is a major factor in people's lives. From a purely academic view, the two are inseparable.

If you mean government and religion, then of course the two don't mix, or at least shouldn't mix. But it is important to recognize the difference between politics and government. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm given to understand they'll either be humans wearing overly complex face makeup and absurd clothes, or naked, large versions of specific Earth taxa. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 19:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Will they find us delicious?

Perhaps the reason why there is so much #awful TV and ghastly adverts# is to persuade the more hostile aliens to go elsewhere (and see [3]). Anna Livia (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Intelligent life would be very rare (I'm talking none within dozens if not hundreds of millions of lightyears from us at best), but there might be some non-intelligent stuff on a few places in our galaxy. KOMF 21:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I think critters are elsewhere, even beyond water-based life. However sentient or intelligent life, especially the one that will have developed a technological civilization, will be MUCH harder to come by to the point we could well probably be the only one currently in this galaxy (PS: posting as a BoN as using a public, shitty, Android terminal.)— Unsigned, by: 212.166.174.208 / talk / contribs

EDIT (logged in in a far more trusty device). Not to mention that I find quite unlikely the possibility to communicate with any sentient alien, in the sense of us understanding he/she/them and vice-versa Panzerfaust (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

What are everyone's thoughts? Will the revolutionary incels overthrow the systems that oppress them? Or will sheer disinterest and bourgeois revisionists posing as fellow communists keep them down? Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

They'll either collapse into petty bickering and infighting or remain obscure and overshadowed by their conservative counterparts. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd say highly traditional conservatism lies at the heart of incel/MRA ideology anyways, so leftist thought can't self-sustain. They'll do the same thing conservatives do all the time, and appropriate the language of the left without understanding it. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Between all the Nazi's marching and whatnot I've seen far less sexism than racism from the alt-right lately (well, besides the google thing, but we've already discussed that). Do you think members of the alt-right are now migrating to the beat of a different drum realizing that belittling around 50% of your native population alienates you from potential members and allies? I mean living in the mid-west I've met plenty of women with firm stances on ethno-nationalism and quote-unquote "PC culture", but they seemed to always be put off by some more "conservative" stances on the roles of their sex. megalodon (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I've seen some talk about MRA being a pathway into the alt-right. Interestingly though, a Unite the Right poster for Charlottesville specifically invited libertarians but not the MRAs. Bongolian (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Seeing the footage from Texas, it reminds me of Hurricane Dennis from 2004. I remember that even here in my home state of Michigan, we got plenty of rain from it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, sometimes when a Daddy Christian fundamentalist and a Mommy Christian fundamentalist love each other, they marry each other. Then the Daddy Christian fundamentalist dips his head into the Mommy Christian fundamentalist's baptismal font, and nine months later a little Christian fundamentalist is born.

And that's how Warren Jeffs came to be. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently in some of the kookier corners of the internet, it is believed that this is the "billing code for execution via Guillotine under Obamacare". I have started a stub, but would like a bit of help developing it. Evil Zionist (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Who needs Obamacare death panels? Just get a doctor to classify someone as E978 and slice! they've been guillotined. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been feeling nihilistic lately. I'm older (past 40) and have been through countless relationships, experiences, people, times of my life, etc. I have lived in many places across the US, from inner urban cities, to beaches, and now I live in the mountains - barely on public utilities. As I get older, all the "noise" (as I call it) of people and life just become mundane. I go into a public setting like a bar and everyone is so excited to talk about things with such importance and passion (like politics or religion or something they saw on facebook or what their sister is doing with her life and how they feel about it) but for me this seems pointless and an exercise just for the sake of exercise. Like sports -- we made up a thing to get excited about and we all get so into it, that it seems we forgot we made it up - like a distraction that consumes. The common denominator I see with everyone and their noise seems to come back to Ego. The "I" or "me". Everything I see people chatting and making noise about, sharing or forcing on other people-- in one way or another is feeding their inner "me" for others to either respect or admire or disagree with, etc. When you start to look at what drives people and why they make noise, interact, and "care" about things in life -- why they consider seemingly irrelevent (on the grand scale) topics to be "important" seems to me a function of ego and has lost its spark for me. I do not necessarily feel depressed - maybe a little sullen. I do not rush to interrupt people or even open my mouth if someone is saying something that I know to be "incorrect". I let them be wrong (in my view) and don't bother feeding my ego to let them know they are incorrect or misinformed/misguided on a topic. People's stories they open up and tell me feel like a waste and I'm not invested in what they are saying. I feel like I am just out to survive conversations with people. Letting them feel better that they shared it, and respectfully acting like they have spent their time with value by telling me the story, but when I walk away, I feel nothing and don't have any more or less investment in what they shared for their own sake of ego and being related. I'm open to what you think about this, but I'm grateful for your channel and your ego (if I may..) to produce these videos and ask for subscriptions :) -- You certainly have my attention and subscription, as you are hitting the topics that I am working on, personally and lately. Thank you.﻿

The above was a quote I saw on a youtube video about the apparent meaninglessness of life. Like how things are just meaningful because we tell ourselves that they are, or as the quote says "things that we made up". It seems to me that the absurdity of existence has no real answer for how to deal with it. I read Camus but he doesn't give an answer. He talks about rebelling instead of suicide but he does not answer why we should rebel (not to mention his response to suicide is incorrect as you do solve the problem through death, negation is the solution). Why rebel against the absurd? Even his notion of seeing Sisyphus happy is far fetched in and of itself. How can we imagine someone rolling a boulder up a hill for the rest of his life as happy when we can imagine doing the same and being happy? It just seems like no philosopher has given a good answer in response to this problem.

There is some Buddhist notions about how it is the focus on the Ego that causes this but I think that's just dodging the question. Like how they say that all the dance and tantrums of human life is just satisfying the ego and without it there is no color. As someone on the video said " I see the ego in action in almost eveything. I feel that the ego is the reason behind all the dance and tantrums. If not for the ego, there is no drama or colour. Sometimes I feel like, everybody knows everything, deep inside. Yet, they all participate in the drama actively, because, why not? What else is there to do?﻿" Machina (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"What else is there to do?" For people who do not work on themselves to find diverting interests, there is often one thing to to. It has been observed that the baboon, genus papio, generally needs only three hours of foraging to satisfy its dietary needs. What then does it do with the other 9 or 10 hours of daylight? The answer can be found here. It's a pretty big world. Introverts don't usually have this problem because they often like things instead of people. People can really be disappointing.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems like the comments say more about the people themselves rather than the issue.Machina (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Some people may spout out their political stupidities to impress others (common in some kinds of bars) while others discuss it to help them deal with the scary world and make sense of things in their limited world view. Some may insist their friends order the new "Spanish tapas" at the bar to show off their trip to Spain and how knowledgeable they are in exotic cuisine, while others care about their friends enjoying something new and share and compare their experiences. A bar is not a reliable snapshot of the social world (nor is a facebook debate nor a rationalwiki salon conversation). It is a space that an introvert can enter, stay disengaged but still observe and feel at least a little connected socially with others. But it is just one social space with narrow limits of human social behaviour. It is not as easy to be part of other groups without engaging more directly (such as a "book club" or a "baseball team" or a "cancer support group" or a "dog-assistant charity group". You may find in these environments, behavior and dialogue that doesn't seem quite so self-centred or ego-based or banal. If you've already done it and tried it and still think it is all trivial and vapid and self-centred, then you just may be a nihilist and likely a french-existentialist. You'll enjoy the works of Sartre (and perhaps Nietzsche) among many others. There's nothing necessarily wrong with your point of view, especially when you seem open to discussing it and flexible about it.87.218.202.15 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thing is I have said the same things they did in the past and it got rended by serious inquiry. But what about how all the things we care about are essentially "made up"?Machina (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

i'm not sure what is you want or expect from all this. you say no philosopher has given a satisfying answer for you. i doubt any such answer exists. if you subscribe to a nihlistic world view, that life is ultimately meaningless, what answer can possibly satisfy you? in truth, you have the answer. its a simple one. life is ultimately meaningless. that is it. accept it. move on. life your life. nothing is gained by wallowing in existential angst. no profound truths will be revealed. live your life. eat, drink and be merry. you complain of the idle chatter of others. Why? they live their own lives how they see fit. their lives, their interests, their hopes and fears, are of importance to them. it is churlish to criticise others for vacuous chat when the failure to connect and disdain for their opinion is your own failure. they are not required to share your hopes and fears. why should they? they live their own lives. you should live yours. this thread is the latest by you asking essentially the same question. we cannot answer it. i do not know your particular circumstances. for some life is easy filled with comfort and luxury. for others life is tough filled with hardship. whatever your circumstances are, live. how you go about that is real question, and it is one only you can answer. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"Even his notion of seeing Sisyphus happy is far fetched in and of itself." This is a question of perspective. One man's eternal torture is another's fun daily hobby. I am damn-near-40. I grow potatoes and beans, I whittle, I hike, I stargaze for constellations, I rockhound. Eternal torture for me would be most people's idea of heaven - surrounded by Mormons in a tennis-based retirement community. So the thought that a king forged in idleness and wealth might find some solace in an eternity of manual labor doesn't seem that far-fetched.
I wasted years of my life focusing on the big big time-waster: WHY? Why am I alive? Why am I here? What's the point of me? I ran in circles, giving myself panic attacks in the shower of all places, mentally freaking out about how, holy geez, everyone you've ever known or loved will be dust in a century. Some combination of exhausting my conscious processes and personal growth led me to the answer (with a tip o' the hat to TheOatmeal). Forget the WHY! The why is -boring-! We live in a world with millions of different species of animals and plants interacting in untold ways, the very firmament itself moving and growing or shrinking as the subtle movements of the inner plates reveal themselves. 8 light-minutes away a vast fusion reactor is blasting away across the spectrum, coaxing fronds from my beans and when those beans are shelled and dried, the black-and-red mottled skins will form a mosaic in the bowl that nobody has ever seen before or will see again. And then, I will eat them. There is wonder. Everywhere. Fucking go out and find it. Good luck, brother. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I've always had the idea that there could be an article of the week, but an article to cleanup and improve for that week. RationalWiki has a lot of articles and I think focusing on some non-brainstared articles can greatly increase the amount of brainstarred articles we have. We have a tendency to have articles with a stub template that haven't been edited for a year:

I'd love that to be real, especially since I work to cite pages and just see the amount needing citation rise so anything that would encourage working on current pages would be great. Vorarchivist (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This would be a neat idea. It's simple enough to just make a thread in the Saloon Bar each week (and maybe have on RationalWiki:space page documenting the pages cleaned up). The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 21:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally I'm not supportive of using violence to get my point across. But all over social media people seem to be ok with using violence when met with violence, and saying that in the past it has been the way to peace. But we tried violence, and they are still here, so what makes them think more of it is going to help? Is this a case of becoming a monster to defeat a monster?Machina (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is a tip on punching Nazis. If when you punch a person you assume is a Nazi, that person doesn't draw a weapon and attempt to kill you, then you probably were mistaken and you have attacked some asshole pretending to be a Nazi. I don't advise punching Nazis if you are not carrying a gun and are prepared to use it. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC).

why would not shooting you mean they arent a Nazi? And why would punching someone mean I must be packing? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, I just assumed everyone knew what the real Nazis were like: they killed their enemies whenever they could. You must be thinking of the assholes pretending to be Nazis.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@'maybe the uni bomber had the right idea'machina- what if Nazi punching brought us back to nature?AMassiveGay (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

jus5 because they are not goose stepping around a concentration camp doesn't make em any less nazi. I would agree though that they are arsehole AMassiveGay (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Well if they are, then they just might kill you. Good luck.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Punching Nazis is a humanitarian effort, and the guy that punched Richard Spencer deserves a Nobel Prize much more than Obama does.'Legionwhat do you want from me 07:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It is also an ineffective effort. Nazis are not just bullies. Bullies run away when their noses are bloodied. Real Nazis like to fight with knives and guns and blunt objects. Real Nazis try to kill you. Don't be stupid, that's all.Ariel31459 (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

When Nazis brandish weapons and attempt to kill people then I think the solution is pretty god damn clear (yes I am encouraging people to kill Nazis)'Legionwhat do you want from me 13:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@ariel - im not sure that you are know what nazis are. Sure, they are not the 1940s nazi party type, they are of the neo nazi type. i'm sure you could quibble about the exact politics of such arseholes, but ulitimately right wing white supremicist are nazi enough to justify the moniker. as for the 'real nazis like to fight with knives and guns', this is just facile. some do, some lift weights, have swastikas on their face go around tooled up and would end me in a heart beat. others, read 'most', look like over weight hipsters (much like everyone else in the west) who i could snap like a twig. as for the bullies are cowards bullshit, thats just... bullshit parents tell their children. usually before they get beaten up after facing up to their cowardly bullies. Buts lets be clear about this. im not advacating assaulting random racists in the street (one of our more vocal nazi punching advocates called me a prick for this), though such action would undoubtedly be satisfying and pretty effective at making a majority of folk think twice about voicing such bullshit. however, if you are met with violence, then you must meet it in kind less it roll over you. seig heiling in the street is an act of violence. Charlottesville was an act of violence. you can wring your hands all you like, but if a racist wants to debate you, debate them. if they are pushing you, you knock them down. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay It is clear to me that you don't understand my point. Real Nazis are dangerous. They can only be dealt with through strength. I just don't want some idiot to think that he can punch a real Nazi and expect to live without putting up a serious fight. If you don't mind dying, good for you. I can tell you that I would be armed if I expected to meet Nazis. I would not hesitate to pull the trigger either. I'm not sure that you understand what Nazis are.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

i understand your point exactly, and as i said earlier, its a facile one. the suggestion that 'real' nazis are all some kind of superhuman killing machines, is idiotic. it flatters them. the idea that someone who holds the exact same views as the latter but has the fighting capacity of a wet sponge is somehow not a real nazi is an idiotic idea. on top of such inane ideas, they are dangerous ideas. you focus on the big scary thugs as the real threat when the other nondescript nazi types go about their business away from your blinkered gaze and spread their poison breeding more like themselves and more like their thuggish pals. and lo, they sneaked into the whitehouse. you think steve bannon isnt a right wing extremist because he hasnt shanked anyone? what about that richard spencer character? has he done much killing after getting battered on tv? i reiterate, i grasped your 'point' and i will reiterate mine - you dont seem to grasp what nazis actually are. as for warnings on punching nazis, they are misplaced. most people with the will for such actions should be able to tell who they can and cannot best. They'll pick their fights. such people are just as thuggish as those that you flatter as nazi ubermensch. the warning should be that such actions will likely result in them getting nicked. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You think I am flattering Nazis? Well aren't you special! Death is special too. Be careful. Don't advise people to do things that will get themselves killed. Facile? Death is not facile son.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I beat the shit out of a neo-nazi who verballed my daughter once. I think a discussion of the incident might still be buried in the archives of RW (although it was a long time ago, maybe 8 years or so). I was subsequently convicted of Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years, ordered to pay the neo-nazi £1500 compensation, and awarded (iirc) 200 ( might have been 150, I don't remember) hours Community Service (which I did working for an animal charity). It was worth it. I hardly ever think about it ... but that guy still has to look at the scar running from his eye to his mouth every morning when he brushes his teeth. Fox (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't punch anyone for their stated political views unless they posses imminent threat to the well being of yourself or of others, regardless of how reprehensible their views are. Democracy cannot function otherwise. If a Nazi actually threatens to harm or kill you though, whoop their man-child ass. megalodon (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

In my younger days I beat up a neo Nazi and got arrested. The officers couldn't hold their laughing when recounting what had happened - I was out free in about 2 hours with the citation not to do it again and try not to be ignited that quickly again. Overe here we basically don't care what happens to Nazis. We lived through what happens when they get to power and I don't think their views should be considered political views. They should be considered a mental disorder. You don't discuss with Nazis, you avoid them and if now possible, you punch them or worse. Over here we simply state that Nazis waived the right to be human the moment they adhered to Nazism. That is, if they are unrelenting, but to speak with Neil Young - the needle the damage done. jojobaplant (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

muwahaha. Erm, I spent all day at work today then all evening doing book stuff. So my RW will be very casual indeed (swoop in, say your writing sucks, swoop out) and I'm afraid that sysadmin will only be happening when the site is seriously on fire and Trent can't be found. And Tim only swung by to help us get our shit together. Any volunteers who actually know their Unix admin and PHP and how not to write XSS holes and and and ... - David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It'll be sad to not have you around here as often, but congratulations, David. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations! I heard Golumbia on the radio a few of weeks ago; he was promoting his own bitcoin book. He was interesting. Bongolian (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

That Motherboard podcast is great. I've just been asked to write up the applications of bitcoin/blockchains to leftist politics for a soft lefty site (Isocracy.org) run by a friend. You would think this would be easy, given there are 0 applications along these lines ... I'll probably be getting Golumbia's help with that one.

So the book has sold about 800 ebooks and 100 paperbacks. This is HOLY SHIT levels for a first book self-published, but obviously I'm 'l33t. My life now is (a) work a day at the day job (b) work an evening at writerly pursuits - which means blog posts that troll the Reddit bitcoin subs into running them. More hits = more sales. I have to turn myself into a pundit.

Contemplating the next book. All I know is it's going to be called Roko's Basilisk and I have to somehow use only my contributions to our article ... - David Gerard (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. All of the social media public spaces are corporate controlled, privately owned, and supported by advertising. They exist to make money. We usually see through economanic pseudo-libertarianism, but too many of us are eager to endorse curtailing the rights of political opponents to be heard. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Even though they'll probably find another host, it's nice to see that the site's down. Although the implications Fuzzy pointed out are chilling. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think there is an argument to be made for deplatforming those who advocate violence. Is it censorship when a corporation does not want to be associated with hate speech, as Identity Evropa has claimed? Bongolian (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

But "violence" is itself political. Is Black Lives Matter violent? (Or: Is it violent enough to merit deplatforming?) Was the 1960's Civil Rights Movement violent? (etc.) Is antifa violent? (etc.)

I see it as a regulation problem: Imagine that the US passed a law defining when an internet service (ISP, DNS registrar, webhost, etc) could choose to cease services based on the website's content. If we defined it as "violence", there's an incredible amount of leeway that could easily let a conservative internet service choose to censor "leftists who want to destroy America" and so on. FuzzyCatPotato of the Ill-bred Universitys (talk/stalk) 16:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess not? People are placing blame on various government officials when victims need help. Hurricane Harvey brings a Katrina level disaster so people want to bring the Katrina level blame game. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well it isn't like people couldn't have left the affected area in time had there been a plan in place... I mean we knew days in advance where the hurricane would hit. Evil Zionist (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

People can move, but buildings and infrastructure can't. Texas as a state doesn't keep itself prepared for hurricanes like this one. 70.214.71.137 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

People don't mind governments throwing enormous generous sums of money post-disaster, but in taxes-phobic U.S. (especially Texas) very expensive pre-disaster spending and infrastructure is low on the agenda, especially if multiple governments are obsessed with slashing budgets to death. It costs a LOT of money to set up the infrastructure, train experts and prepare warning systems, mass evacuation and the sophisticated technology and logistics involved in order to deal with different problems in different regions. And local, state and fed governments are loathe to coordinate with one another, give or take money with/without conditions, lose autonomy. In the end the victims are right, their governments failed them. but then many of them voted in those governments, on a platform of low-taxes and skin and bones spending. So yeah. Who is to blame? Terribly sad and devastating...especially for such a wealthy state/country. It is obscene :( 88.202.186.211 (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Buildings and infrastructure can be rebuilt and replaced, people cannot be replaced. And well, it should always be worked out by qualified experts whether it is cheaper to build the stuff to withstand a hurricane or to replace it after each one. Given that the Gulf of Mexico is getting warmer and this means more energy in hurricanes, we might wish to have someone look long and hard at this. But politicians are notably good at not listening to experts outside the fields of law and economics (because most politicians that went to uni studied law or economics) Evil Zionist (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

At the rate climate change is going, these storms will become the norm. —LJL (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"Buildings and infrastructure can be rebuilt and replaced"

"people cannot be replaced"

We've had 7 Presidents die in office and they were replaced in less than an hour. A hundred billion people have died since our species came into existence, and all of them have been replaced in one way or another. The sun keeps rising in the east, the world keeps on spinning. In the grand scheme of things, we are all nothing more than raindrops in a hurricane. When you die, your family will be sad for a bit, your kids will move on, your wife will remarry, and your most treasured possessions will be sold in a garage sale if not filling up some landfill. The idea that we are all "irreplaceable" is nothing more than a scared mind trying to protect itself from reality.

As for infrastructure, who is going to die rebuilding it? Ask yourself this; how many people died building the world trade center? 60, thats how many died building it. That doesn't include the people who suffered horrible injuries and lost a fraction of their life as a result. That doesn't include the people who died mining the iron ore, smelting the steel, or transporting the materials. The machinery of society has always been lubricated with the sweat and the blood of the workers and the tears of their families; modern industry and safety just makes those fluids go further but doesn't eliminate them entirely. So no, buildings and infrastructure are no "irreplaceable" than the people who will die rebuilding them. CorruptUser (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

My point was that when we move the people out of the way of the storm in time, we don't lose all that much. Sure we can't move a highway or a hospital out of the way, but we can move the cars and the patients. And the infrastructure should be built in such a way as to either withstand the hurricane or so that we can replace it. Sure we build dams and levies and ungdogly technological advances to protect our stuff, but we still evacuates in case the dam breaks. Evil Zionist (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed course of action, but disagree with you on some basic premises, is all.

Before the Fundamentalists hijack the story, may I say that Hurricane Harvey is Jehovah's warning to right-wingers about their support of Donald Trump. Jesus, the son of Jehovah, said "My blessings on the poor." Luke 6:20 while Trump tried to take health insurance from the poor; Jesus said, "My curses upon the rich." Luke 6:24 but Trump is trying to give the rich yuuuge taxbreaks etc.. Could the message to Texas Republicans be any clearer?

Sure. Racism is one of the most ambiguous words of our time. In my opinion it can be well-described as rationalized xenophobia directed at a particular race or set of races other than ones own. The xenophobic reaction (on both sides), is natural until habituation takes effect, which usually happens after a moderate period of exposure. The racist is one who rationalizes the xenophobic response as being justifiable and develops explanations that become base beliefs. This is how wacky race theories originate, including the ones about white people. There is no point being defensive because presumably everyone has a xenophobic response tendency. It just isn't normally permanent.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about that, I've never held any grudge or had xenophobic responses to any other race or culture. I'm Hispanic and my mother is white and she could care less about skin color anymore than I can.(ノ°Д°）ノʇsədɯəꓕ nɹnɯıꓤ 15:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Individual perspectives always vary. Perhaps you were habituated to a white mother before you were even capable of rationality. The xenophobic responses I describe are biologically identifiable and irrational. They may be of short duration. Induction is not helpful in examining this construct.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about black people, I have never harbored ill will or regard to them, in fact they became close friends.King Rimuru 15:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Very good. That is a good. But, as I have pointed out, induction is not helpful. we only know that your xenophobic response was probably weak, so you are on the good side of that bell curve. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Often, the term xenophobia is used interchangeably with racism, yet the two are actually different in that one is much more specific than the other. While racism defines prejudice based solely on ethnicity, ancestry or race, xenophobia covers any kind of fear related to an individual or group perceived as being different from the person with the phobia. In other words xenophobia and racialism are different, xenophobia means that a white person from Africa (like my biological grandmother) will also be hated by a white person. Racialism is more specific.(ノ°Д°）ノʇsədɯəꓕ nɹnɯıꓤ 15:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

My great-grandmother however..... she was as racist as they come, Black and Hispanic she hated, that was until I was born, she doted over me and her view of Hispanics changed. Unfortunately she still had ill will to Blacks.(ノ°Д°）ノʇsədɯəꓕ nɹnɯıꓤ 15:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The link is talking about a situation where 6 out of ten white people are bullies/horrible racists. That's, well, I'm going to need to see some citation on that. And if that's just an exaggeration, one can also exaggerate things about black people to twist the story in the other direction. StickySock (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Explaining "some whites are antiracist" and "all antiracists are allies" should not take 40 tweets. (For any pro-equity cause: "Some privileged people are opponents of systems of privilege" and "all opponents of systems of privilege are allies".) However: The author tells whites (privileged people) to "SHUT UP, LISTEN, & ALIGN". This is ineffective advice. The vast majority of antiracists (privilege-opponents) support antiracist causes (privilege-opponent causes). The failure of antiracist causes to end racism is, in large part, due to large populations of nonracists (privilege-neutrals) and racists (privilege-proponents). Racism is a societal issue that cannot be resolved by "organizing" alone. (Or: Even if antiracists have 7/13 (53.8%) of the people, the 6/13 (46.2%) left still exert racism through their institutional positions and through their personal interactions.) Antiracism, like vaccination, requires near-total coverage in a population to prevent racist institutions or interactions. In turn, this requires "recruitment" of nonracists and racists -- and telling them to "SHUT UP, LISTEN, & ALIGN" is more likely to alienate them than recruit them. It is the duty of antiracists -- white and nonwhite alike -- to recruit racists -- white and nonwhite alike. TLDR: Telling people to de-racist-ify themselves doesn't work. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

One basic problem with the 'privilege' idea, or more precisely, the political doctrines associated with the idea, is that all human societies define an in-group, and so necessarily an out-group. Expecting people to be equal in social capital, status, representation, or rank is never going to work anywhere. On the other hand, teleport a white American and a black American to the streets of Harare, and they will quickly learn how much they have in common. The best we can hope for is to persuade people not to define their in-group along the lines of skin color. The US military appears to me to be much farther along in this criterion than most other enterprises. How do we make that model work for the rest of us? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Create an external enemy, preferably one with decent morals that we have to be better than? StickySock (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There are two things going on when someone says #not all... (fill in the blank). First, there is a traumatic event that recently happened where people are afraid, hurt, suffering and recovering. Also there is a wider debate about privelage and group responsibility and if something can be done about it. Both of these issues should be considered when responding. For example, when there was an attack in my county (Spain) a couple weeks ago, I read people saying "yeah, but bombs like that go off every day in the Middle East and you don't care about that!". This fails in two ways. It badly deals with "privelage and group responsibility" and horrendously fails at "victims and those sympathetic trying to deal with a trauma". These kind of phrases enrage and can make things worse for victims and those sympathetic. The second kind of response is "not all Muslims are terrorists". I think this deals with privelage and group responsibility in a way that can be easily improved by inverting the phrase "We are Muslims against these shameful extremists. We grieve with you". It communicates nearly the same thing, deals with privelage and group responsibility and also deals with those still suffering from the trauma. Secondarily, it is a much better response per those still suffering from a recent trauma. Trust me, as they are still doing a body count in Barcelona I saw "not all muslims are terrorists" AND "yeah but you don't care about x in the middle East" and both of those enraged me, sickened me and added to the horror one feels as your sense of safety erodes and you are close to the senseless death of locals and tourists.

When it comes to rape or mass rape, it is no different. If a woman or man was gang raped in say, San Francisco, you don't normally see people saying "yeah...well women are gang raped in India every day and you don't seem to care about them". That is extremely nasty and rare, yet it is no different to the "oh yeah...well terrorism happens every day in the middle east yet you don't care". Some think it's reasonable in a case of terrorism yet not when it comes to rape. I've heard some awful regressive explanations why which makes me very sad. Now, if many men or women are gang raped in San Francisco and a big discussion about rape culture starts happening #not-all-men is a scuzzy way of dealing with it. You avoid dealing with privvelage and group responsibility and do nothing for victims, those sympathetic to them nor those afraid of rape. The response "we are men against rape culture and we stand with rape victims" communicates much the same thing but it deals MUCH better with privelage and group responsibility and deals MUCH MUCH better with those suffering, those sympathetic and women (or men) afraid of rape. It's a little more complicated when it comes to racism, but the general idea still applies. 142.234.73.85 (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hopefuly this shes light on why #not all men, #not all muslims, #not all black people etc. can hurt and enrage people and yet is't even necesarily. It can easily by improve by inverting the phrase. "We are x against x's who do this and we support you" ... for example. 142.234.73.85 (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön I think leftist intersectionality is the best bet. Blame wealth distributions & blame political systems instead of blaming people. Recognize that even the richest white is still oppressed by a system that relies on fixed identities and hate. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The song from Avenue Q does speak some truth in my eyes.S.H. DeLong (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC).

Every society relies on fixed identities and military society is perhaps the most extreme example. There is no escaping what humans do with their spare time. They do what many other representatives of their order do (remember the papio?): they annoy the hell out of their neighbors. e.g.,"Robert Sapolsky, a professor of neuroscience at Stanford University who has studied primate behavior, said bumper sticker one-upmanship is similar to behavior he has witnessed in baboons. Baboons spend only about three hours of the day foraging for food; the remaining 21 hours of free time, he said, are a kind of behavioral vacuum - not unlike three days in the Hamptons - which baboons pass by annoying and harassing one another to no particular end, creating what scientists call psychosocial stress. "If you're a baboon on the Serengeti, and you're miserable," Mr. Sapolsky said, "it's almost certainly because some other baboon has had the free time and energy to devote to making you miserable." Blame anything you like for all the good it will do.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this "SHUT UP, LISTEN & ALIGN" part specifically directed at anti-racist white people? I assumed that according to him, there are anti-racist persons who take it personally when marginalized people put all white people together whenever they call out anything (or base their discussion on privilege plus power concept). My take away is those anti-racist white people should stop debating about "how there are good white ppl (like us) too" but actually make an action, which among them is recruitment like you said. I think you're right about how people should be dealing with non-racist/racist people. Dogeatsdog (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dogeatsdog You might be right about who the "SHUT UP, LISTEN & ALIGN" message is directed at. Unfortunately, modern communication (newspapers, Twitter, etc.) aren't very directional at all -- and so neutrals and antiracists may see these messages too and may get triggered aggreived. It would be better to author a cohesive document about antiracist strategies and spread it to antiracist activists. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Without an understanding of what racism is and how it originates, there can be no effective anti-racist strategies. Until then, it is only happy talk.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It is getting worse and it is not looking good whatsoever. I have tried to stay as rational as possible, but I fear what might be the inevitable, which is a nuclear war. Mention: I probably am overreacting again. S.H. DeLong (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not making any excuse for my behaviour, but I have very bad issues with anxiety and I also have a deep love for politics which causes a massive dilemma for me. S.H. DeLong (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Think of it this way: If the nuke hits you directly, you'll never know about it. If you're in the fallout zone, the military will probably provide extremely speedy evacuation. If you're not, you're fine. At worst, you get painless death or increased mutation risk. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 04:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I just hope their alliance with China breaks down. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you in Guam, Japan or South Korea at the moment? If not, there is very little need to worry, as North Korea either cannot reach or has no stated reason to attack other places. Evil Zionist (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Joy they just conducted their sixth nuclear test, and soon Trump will be calling for the military option. Guns will be blazing!!!! S.H. DeLong (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Not to fuel anxieties, but at least technically N'Korea's current missiles do have enough range (potentially >5,000 to 6,000 miles) to reach the North American pacific coast and potentially even parts of the US East Coast (including NYC).

To FuzzyCat: Well, you don't have to fear the nuke that hits you on the head or 1,000 km away. The grizzly ones are those that catch you on their fringes of blast radii.— Unsigned, by: 165.227.44.47 / talk / contribs

Hi I have an article which cites content on a youtube channel. However, the subject of the article might have his channel delete by Youtube due to running afoul of Youtube's community guidelines. How should I preserve the referenced content in such a case so as to be verified?— Unsigned, by: RationalRex / talk / contribs

Remember: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@RationalRex Unfortunately, neither web.archive.org or archive.is currently works for YouTube videos. Your best bet is to [1] archive the pages, so you at least can verify the video titles, and [2] download the relevant videos via youtubeinmp4 or a similar service. If you're really dedicated, [3] reupload them on a "mirror" YouTube account (or Vid.me or something like that). In short: There's no good answer. FuzzyCatPotato of the Vulgar Plagues (talk/stalk) 02:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Question relating to Formal Logic or it is philosophy (I don't know)[edit]

People say, "Nothing is absolute", but if it was the case- that would imply "Absolutely Impossible" is impossible? It seems like a never ending circle. If nothing is absolute then you cannot say something is absolutely impossible. I am not sure, I never studied formal logic and my highest mathematics education is Geometry. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The statement, "Nothing is absolute", is not intended as a logical statement, but as a heuristic one. When they say "nothing", they really mean "almost everything". The idea is that almost everything is negotiable at some level, under some circumstances. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

After God created everything there was a first flood before Adan to remove Satan and his angels, who had rebelled and went to Earth. That first flood is behind coke and fossils, that were sorted by it explaining why there're marine fossils on mountains (meaning said flood would have killed all life that existed by then) and would be followed by the appearance of the Garden of Eden, Adan, and -of course- the Biblical flood as everything went corrupt again complete with Noah's ark (of course this will be followed in the future with the End Times and everything becoming messed up).

Is there any reference to that first flood elsewhere (Bible, etc. It does not appear in the one here) or it's far more likely just Creationist-made BS?. I prefer to STFU about someone who being considered as we know has to send two floods to purge everything and still fails on his purposes (guess Satan had a spaceship). Panzerfaust (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like bullshit. Do you have a link to whatever/whoever is promoting the idea? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope, heard it on an evangelical radio station I often listen when bored and want to pick BS. It's probably on some creationist site somewhere.

As a side note, calling a meeting of evangelicals "2017 Invasion"… well (this is a Catholic country, by the way). Panzerfaust (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

When evangelism sends its people, they're not sending their best...

I don't think any reading of Genesis would suggest two floods. (And are floods supposed to kill angels like Satan?) Smells like "goddidit isn't sciencey enough, let's add something new to the Bible". The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 19:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, is that!. I remember how he began mentioning the everything was created "in the beginning", which gives pretty much any amount of time to shoehorn everything you want in between. Maybe he'd elaborate on where's the divine omnipotence when two floods are sent and that fails so miserably, and how heavens and Earth going away in the "End Times" squares with the vast Universe we... Oh, well. Wanting too much from a book so old. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Gap Creationism" certainly allows you make the universe any age you want. But then (in my experience) it tries to cram the whole of evolution and human history into 10,000 years. So it's still a big failure in science terms.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of the idea of selecting U.S. Senators by sortition[edit]

Instead of holding Senatorial elections, each state could hold lotteries to pick citizens at random to serve in the Senate. It would remove the influence of campaign donors from Senatorial politics and give us a body that more closely represents a cross-section of the American people. The House meanwhile could still serve as a body that's accountable to the voters (at least theoretically, if it weren't all gerrymandered to hell). It makes sense, if one house is going to be selected by sortition, that it be the Senate, since they wouldn't be eligible to run for re-election and therefore would need to serve a longer term (i.e. six years) in order to more opportunity to get up to speed before leaving office.

The two houses are supposed to serve as a check and balance on each other, but that purpose is defeated somewhat if they're both chosen by the same method (e.g. elections). Prior to the 17th Amendment, it would've been possible to implement sortition through state law; even now, Governors are free to use sortition to select replacements for Senators who leave office early. That might be a good starting point for some sortition experiments. Ailurus (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

William F. Buckley famously proposed something similar. He specifically said that he'd rather be governed by people picked randomly from the phone book than by the Harvard University faculty. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, it would be even better if the house of Representatives was elected with proportional representation. Diacelium (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it should be senators, but maybe some city councilors to see how that shakes out? Evil Zionist (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard is a pedophilia apologist, yet this section got removed from his article. view the history of his article.

This website sucks if you start to defend pedophiles. What on earth are you doing?Mildmay (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@MildmayI'm not sure. I think Mr. Kierkegaard (or someone impersonating him) came and threatened to sue us, or something. If you want to come up with a section that doesn't place the site in legal jeopardy, then please bring something up on the talk page. Thanks, RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Mildmay is clearly the same person as Welliver. Valid criticism against Kirkegaard and his nuttery exists -- but if your single purpose is to attack these people, then you'll end up writing shitty hitpieces. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 14:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The real Kirkegaard did not make a legal threat; it was an impersonator, as validated by his personal Twitter feed and noted on the RW talk page.[5] It could possibly be argued that Kirkegaard is an apologist, but someone(s) is trying to make it seem that he is saying something that he is not. Bongolian (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Our article on Apartheid could discuss a couple more details in more depth[edit]

I've raised the issue on the talk page but so far no dice. Could we maybe discuss the very juicy relationship between ultra-Calvinism and Apartheid South Africa? We might also want to dig a bit deeper on the "If Apartheid ends South Africa will become Zimbabwe" claims of the 1980s. Evil Zionist (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have good references, go for it! Bongolian (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

his presidential pardon isnt really a big deal. its just the latest dodgy pardon from a pres in recent times, and not even the most egregious in my mind. he no doubt deserved prison, but ultimately arpaio is a spent force. not much would change if he were sent down or not. im sure there are more pressing issues worthy of your attention. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Though Trump issued the pardon to Arpaio, and the judge in the case has stopped the sentencing hearing, the judge has not dismissed the case. This has basically forced to Arpaio to make a decision about whether to accept the pardon. If he accepts the pardon, that potentially opens him up to massive civil litigation because accepting the pardon means that he accepts culpability.[6]Bongolian (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It is a big deal. What do you think some of the more moronic (or is that smarter?) cowboy-justice Sherriffs with a desire for extrajudicial heroics will do now? 87.218.193.144 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

what they are they are already doing or what they already planned to do? do you think that they'll be counting on presidential pardons from now on? Also, Arpaio was getting sent down for contempt of court not for 'extrajudicial heroics'. the pardon really isnt a big deal. its just something US presidents do from time to time. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, having a section about the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln might be interesting. I'm highly skeptical of him being gay or bi but it's an interesting thing to mention regardless. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

these 'he might be gay' historical exercises always boil down to we like him, hes one of us or we dont like him, he a gayer. the only case that is interesting is that of richard casement, and that had actual evidence (the black diaries) of him actually saying how much he likes cock. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

With most notable figures it is a matter of 'unless they are blatantly hypocritical or overtly promotional who actually cares?' (Some TV talking head a few years ago (paraphrasing) - there are three homosexuals in Tony Blair's cabinet - X and Y and Peter Mandelson' and the sky didn't fall in. 109.150.41.73 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I see a lot of things taken out of context for Lincoln, see the "Speculative research" section. It goes down the same route as Shakespeare's authorship. Missional.—♥127.0.0.1♥ (talk • stalk) 21:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln's psychology was interesting for other reasons besides his sexuality. It seems certain that he periodically suffered from bouts of clinical depression. Many of his most quotable moments are great specifically because his depressive realism allowed him to see through the conventional political pieties of his age. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

There are many historical figures who have been biographically outed in the last few decades as homosexuals without vilainising them. If anything...some of them are celebrated for who they were and the public/familiar shaming they dealth with. Tchaikovsky, Proust and Turing are but a few examples. 87.218.193.144 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, this is probably another random rambling but why those who promote conspiracies that involve NASA use images released by said agency as proof (Hoagland, I'm looking at you)?. I know no space agency has gone as far away as them (minus ESA with the Huygens probe, that in any case was piggybacked to Cassini) and even with crowdfunding is expensive to send a probe to the Moon, not to mention any other planet, but come on. Can't they see that images may have been altered before being released to the public (and not just cosmic rays removal, color adjustments and other changes) or, simply put, could be fake? Panzerfaust (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a RW page on re-enactment societies and similar (steampunk, Neo-Victorian etc) - they are fairly harmless (unless you are facing the wrong end of a ballista or the proverbial 18-foot pike), and can be 'compared and contrasted' with the mall ninjas, survivalists and others. Anna Livia (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Some who play the Wehrmacht (and I guess to a larger extent the Waffen-SS) when enacting WWII battles are said to be more than simply RPGing, but I guess the same could be said of the Red Army. Panzerfaust (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

If you can find notable examples of specific (well-referenced and documented) re-enactment societies pushing crank ideas, then sure. I think this is the second time the suggestion has come up, but I don't think anything came of the first one. If you're only contrasting them to mall ninjas and survivalists, then all you need are new sections for their respective pages rather than an entirely new article.98.110.112.28 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed a few months ago in the Saloon. I think the main issue is to make sure that the page is missional. Bongolian (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

From what few encounters I have had with re-enactors (and related groups) generally they are fairly normal apart from 'enjoying dressing up' - they are learning craft and other skills etc. More to show 'how to have fun and do weird things (and even be people others would be glad to be stranded with as having practical skills) and not be the subject of a RW article.' Anna Livia (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

So I was messing around today looking for something to listen to while doing my quantum homework and I found this channel. Apart from the fact that I shouldn't be distracting myself while doing homework, what are other RW users thoughts on this sort of strand of futurism? Personally, I found some of his hypothetical considerations of alien civilizations to be interesting. However, I did find something troubling about these videos; my impression is that these videos are presented as scientific in nature, but the content is so speculative that it enters the realm of science fiction. Things like manned interstellar travel are so far beyond current technology that predicting exactly what technology would be involved is almost pointless. I love science fiction, and I believe that it can be a powerful factor in inspiring future scientists and engineers, but I also believe it is important to recognize that there is a difference between science fiction and science. It is easy to become so lost with our heads in the clouds of our own imagination that we forget to face the imminent problems of our present. Am I just overreacting? This is just one youtube channel, and I can think of plenty of people on youtube creating content far more damaging.
PS: Just a quick caution that his videos are quite long, so make sure you have a good half hour to kill before embarking on one. Samstr (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Where is the boundary between 'taking speculation as far as it will go' and 'science fiction' - though some 'technology of the now' originated in someone coming across a SF McGuffin and deciding 'I want one of those'? Sometimes 'extrapolating present trends' shows paths it is wished to take and paths it is wished to avoid.

There is room for both 'dealing with present issues' and 'exploring possibilities' - and they can interact. Anna Livia (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I must say that I'm a fan of Isaac Arthur's channel. Yes, some of his videos are speculative, but to me his his arguments seem reasonable. And I think when he becomes really speculative he says it openly. And in some videos Isaac isn't speculating at all, but just reviewing speculations, like he did in the Fermi Paradox Compendium video. –Mad physicist (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Why does the Palestinian Leadership not sit down to peace talks without preconditions?[edit]

If I remember correctly, such talks have been offered several times by numerous Israeli leaders. Why have Hamas and Fatah not accepted those offers for years now? Evil Zionist (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Legalism time. This isn't a valid reason to impeach someone. Abuse of power, in and of itself, is neither a high crime nor a sign of mental disability beyond the limit of the ability to hold office. Both of those are true of this fascist asshat, but they aren't the reason you've given. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 14:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bigljbigl - To what specific abuses do you refer? Anything actionable? Anything the republicans will get behind? Being a egregious prick is probably not going to cut it. without specifics, 'impeach trump' is no more useful or reasonable than 'imprison hillary'. Trumps already under investigation for various stuff, why not wait and see what that turns up AMassiveGay (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

As long as Trump is in that office distracting everyone with his douchey dickery, the agenda of austerity, gutted social programs, billion dollar walls, destruction of privacy and consumer rights, extreme business deregulation etc. is going nowhere. Very little to absolutely nothing is being achieved in this way. If Trump went and Pence took over, I have no doubt he would achieve all of this...quite easily. 92.177.175.253 (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘.WHY ARE SO MANY PEOPLE HERE?! —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

There is some sense to the argument that Trump sabotaging his own his agenda is better than a competent Pence getting things passed. But if Trump is forced to leave office, that would likely affect midterm elections to swing the Senate and House away from Republicans. So their agenda is kinda screwed either way. Leuders (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@ikanreed: Just a reminder: A POTUS doesn't need to have committed "high crimes" to be impeached, but can also be impeached for "misdemeanours", which is a huge (or should I say "'Uuuge!"?) field. However, I agree that the Republicans probably aren't going to impeach Trump unless he has clearly done something seriously illegal à la Nixon/Watergate. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You're (understandably) misunderstanding the langage. Expressed more "mathematically" the intention of the language is high*(crimes or misdemeanors). Also misdemeanor didn't, at the time, mean, as we understand the word now, the lower version of felony. It referred to actions that impugned one's character. So a "high misdemeanor" would be things like corruption, or... let's hypothetically say... near-treasonous coordination with a foreign government? ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, apparently, if more recent history is any guide, having an extramarital affair with a subordinate may also count as a serious (enough) misdemeanour(?) I was actually reading the phrase in the way you suggested: Something that is seen as morally/ethically incompatible with holding the office of POTUS without ammounting to the legal definition of a high crime (usually an euphemism for treason). Nevertheless, even if we raise the bar to "high misdemeanour", the scope remains wide for a possible impeachment — if a majority in Congress backs it.

As I wrote before, though, I doubt that a Republican majority will avail themselves of the (high) misdemeanour leeway, unless a continued Trump presidency seems likely to pose a serious threat to a large number of Congressional reelection campaigns. It seems to me that the Congressional GOP's current cost/benefit analysis remains that it would hurt the party more if it tries to get rid of Trump (as per the "Rather having him inside the tent pissing out, than vice versa"-dictum), instead of indulging him rampaging across the political stage with his "governance by rally and Twitter"-antics. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently according to the supposed math on his side, Musk says that it is likely that we are in a simulation and that the odds are against us that we aren't. Machina (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It's lacks falsifiability, so it is ultimately not useful to think about. Also, less important, it seems Bostrom left out one option: humans who become sufficiently advanced do create such a simulation. Assuming the physics of the simulator world are the same as the simulated world, it might be the case that the simulation would exceed maximum theoretical computation. Is there an excess of philosophers in Sweden, @Reverend Black Percy? Bongolian (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Falsifiable or not, one thing that has called my attention with the simulation idea is that to date there's absolutely no bugs unless you were to consider Heisenberg's uncertainly principle a sort of one. Alas, what about the possibility of a recurrence (a simulation (us) within another simulation, or maybe we in the future preparing one -which, by the way, ethical considerations apart would be very useful to test that kind of economical/societal ideas that cannot be tested in real life-)? Panzerfaust (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)f

I would like to think that just because creating something so lifelike would result in a major existential crisis that it would not be done.Machina (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It's possible that there is a simulation which improves its accuracy by running smaller, temporary simulations and gathering data from them. We might be part of one of those throw-away simulations.

As for why anyone would make a simulation, don't we do a really lame version of that whenever we plan ahead, even a little bit? A super-mind doing its equivalent of us deciding how exactly to prepare a sandwich might have idly created all of our universe before it even opened the fridge door. 94.1.175.194 (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Musk's math is unconvincing. There is no way to provide an estimate of the percentage of real or "base" universes with civilizations capable of building a super-computer of the sort required to create a simulated reality. Undoubtedly the ones that can't do so far outnumber the ones that can (bell curve). That fact alone makes the probability of existing in a simulated universe rather insignificant. In other words, Musk's argument does not consider the possibility that there are infinite universes, most without supercomputers. This simulated reality argument is well-described by the maxim, "if you can't dazzle them with genius, baffle them with bullshit." Also, think of the resolution a photograph provides: with sufficient magnification there is no further detail. A finite program would furnish finite detail, thus it is certainly impossible to build such a computer in the first place.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

its a pretty wank simulation if it is. is too much to ask to code in more super powers and less cancer? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If I could get the freaking time to finish him, I could get Mephistopheles to do it. I'll let you know when he's done, Fuzzy, but school makes things complicated. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I think we talked about this two months ago? Anyways, school and college applications mean that, at this point, the bot is still mostly in the planning stage. If you want another archiving bot, I can make another archiving bot. Also, I don't think I'm getting your pings. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth, you get that? If you didn't check your preferences and see if you've got the "mention" box ticked under notifications. Christopher (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are all the articles on them in funspace? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

They are far easier to make fun than to make missional. In principle, there could be both a funspace and mainspace page for any given state. Bongolian (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Missionality is probably the biggest reason for most of them. If we moved them to mainspace, they'd probably be the subjects of another flurry of AfD cases within a month. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I knew that Conservapedia is draconian and unreasonable, but why do they block nearly every "offending" user for 5 years, with almost no deviation from that standard? CJ-Moki (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If RW were to do a version of the Big Brother franchise (load of 'weird people locked in a building for the (prurient) entertainment of viewers') who would RWians send there? (And what chance setting off the apocalypse in the process - or seriously decreasing the possibility of it arising?) Anna Livia (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

the main prerequisite of going on big brother is to be a complete prick. you might want to think twice about saying who you think should go in. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I posted a similar thread a while back about cramming RWians into a doomsday bunker. I'm guessing this idea is somewhat similar in that stuffing more than twenty of us in a single room isn't a popular idea. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

More 'the subjects of RW articles' than RWians themselves. The more unlikely the groupings the better. Anna Livia (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Very much so, especially those from the "Insufferable assholes" category. This is what people who watch that crap want (Murray Rothbard and Stalin/Hitler together. Mmmmmmm...). Panzerfaust (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

One advantage of 'Subjects of RW articles BB house' - improving the world for the time they are not attempting to influence it.

The idea can also be used as a timefiller when 'what is happening in Real Life' is too boring. Anna Livia (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

As there is 'at least one person' posting 'phone me on this number anyone, please' spam articles can RW users please redirect 'the nuisance-phone-callers who persist in calling you at the most inconvenient times' to this or these person(s), as this would resolve the seeming emptiness of their lives. Anna Livia (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

As well as not shutting their mouths about Obama and the Liberals. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm here to explain the mindset of the right wing to you. Does your position annoy liberals? Congrats it's a position you love regardless of any material utility! ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The conservative mind is a strange and conflicted place. These are people who will cheer when trump tells them the world is laughing at the US, and how he'll make America great again, and who will, at the same time, punch you in the face for saying America's not the greatest country in the world. These are people who cheer tax cuts for the richest, under the assumption it will benefit them, whilst seeing these same rich folk campaign against increasing the minimum wage. These are people who'll work 2 or 3 jobs to pay the bills, or medical expenses, because that is somehow more noble than putting a little bit of money aside to pay for everybody's medical bills, which in turn would mean you wouldn't have to work 2 or 3 jobs. These are people who've been raised since childhood to be subservient to authority - father, church, teacher, politicians (as long as they're on their side) - and when they reach a position of authority themselves, even if just in the home, they take it as they now have absolute authority over their bit of the world, and will not be questioned. Likewise, those in authority positions above them will not be questioned, so they blindly accept things when Trump lies and says the US is the most taxed nation in the world. Because somebody in authority said it. I could go on, but I'm losing my train of thought and the will to live. LongLostLegend (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

People in that situation also feel judged and put upon by a 'liberal elite'. Many of them never went to a university, but they see college students posturing about identity politics in media coverage. They assume with some justice that the coverage of these issues implies sympathy with them; media, after all, edit what they present to you, and every news story represents editorial choice. Their experience of that sort of thing probably comes out of a human resources department, where people with degrees (probably a woman with spectacles and tight hair) get them disciplined and fired in the name of 'diversity' for stating their minds in ways entirely customary chez nous, but now subject to apparently random censure. They like Trump because they see him as sticking it to the semi-educated white collar class of bosses that immediately oppresses them. And I at least have some sympathy for their viewpoint. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Turns out people get tired of politely waiting for you to treat them as human beings. This is the point of my above post. The right is pretty much entirely defined by petty vengeance against perceived slights now. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 20:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

My hypothesis is the typical Trump voter is a malcontent like Johnny Ringo in Tombstone, a sociopath who thinks everyone else is an idiot, not paying attention or just incompetent. It should be noted that only one major newspaper in America endorsed Trump, and those guys tend to be old-fashion conservatives.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

At best, it seems like Trump supporters are compliant with racism as long as Trump delivers the jobs and keeps the immigrants out. I think that's a mindset of most Trump voters, who claim they overlook how Trump backs white supremacists and Nazis. I don't think that's a healthy kind of thought. It seems like a foot in the door for accepting racism. Very troubling. Trump supporters are the most exasperating bunch and I cling to the hope that they'll abandon this cocksuckler douchefarting wrinkled orange peel but it's a slim hope. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Their response to the events is "at least Trump is doing something" but that's fucking delusional. Do they not remember the healthcare thing? And some of this "getting things done" is hiring Scott Pruitt (and now John Konkus) to rape the environment and pillage the EPA? They really want this just so they can magically get jobs while Trump litters their town with his oily black diarrhea and constipation so hard it looks like coal. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, some Trump supporters are responsive to Trump's racist messages and some are indifferent to them; there is some other issue that motivates them such as job loss through automation. This latter variety of Trumpistas should turn against him eventually.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

My theory (OK, I stole it from Al Franken) is that voters are more driven by desire for something new than commitment to an ideology. The political pendulum swings in the opposing direction every other election or so. The public get tired or bored or fed up with the party in office and yearn for change. Starting with JFK, the pendulum has swung L L R R L R R L R L R. I can predict it swinging L again, especially after enduring a few years of Trump disasters. Leuders (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)